NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DAISY SOSA-SALGUERO, No. 12-73239
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-479-081
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Daisy Sosa-Salguero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies within and among Sosa-Salguero’s affidavit, testimony,
and documentary evidence regarding the dates of two beatings and the order in
which they occurred. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under
totality of circumstances). The agency was not compelled to accept Sosa-
Salguero’s explanations for the inconsistent dates. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649
F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Contrary to Sosa-Salguero’s contention, the BIA
did not fail to consider the totality of the evidence. We also reject her contention
that the BIA improperly relied on minor or incidental inconsistencies. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47 (“[a]lthough inconsistencies no longer need to go to
the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the
claim it doubtless is of great weight”). In the absence of credible testimony, Sosa-
Salguero’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 12-73239
Further, Sosa-Salguero’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same
statements the agency found not credible, and she does not point to any other
evidence in the record that would compel the finding that it is more likely than not
she would be tortured if returned to Guatemala. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, we reject Sosa-Salguero’s contentions that the BIA erred in its
analysis of her withholding of removal and CAT claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73239