FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DINA ELIZABETH PINEDA- No. 07-72292
ORELLANA,
Agency No. A073-996-786
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General,**
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2012***
San Francisco, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Eric H. Holder is substituted for his predecessor, Michael B.
Mukasey, as Attorney General. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: BEA and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District Judge.****
Dina Elizabeth Pineda-Orellana (“Pineda”) petitions for review of the
order by the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pineda was
not credible because of inconsistencies between her hearing testimony and
statements she made during her asylum interview. For example, Pineda told the
asylum officer that she did not know the reasons why her father and mother were
attacked in separate incidents, but at the hearing claimed that both were related to
persecution she suffered as a result of her newspaper work. Likewise, Pineda was
inconsistent about whether the bus incident in which she witnessed harassment
involved guerillas or members of the military, when the incident took place, and
whether she took pictures of the perpetrators or merely wrote about the incident.
These discrepancies are central to Pineda’s claims about why she was persecuted
and by whom, and the agency reasonably rejected her explanations. See Rivera v.
Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007).
****
The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge
for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
2
Pineda argues that the agency should not have relied on her asylum
interview statements to find these inconsistencies. However, she had a full
opportunity to address the discrepancies after the immigration judge put her on
clear notice that they cast doubt on her credibility, and her attorney declined an
opportunity to cross-examine the asylum officer. In these circumstances, the
agency was permitted to consider Pineda’s asylum interview statements as a basis
for comparison in evaluating her credibility. Cf. Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081,
1089-90 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that asylum officer’s report did not support
adverse credibility finding because, among other things, petitioner did not have an
opportunity to address purported discrepancies).
The agency’s adverse credibility finding is sufficient to support its denial of
Pineda’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. As for her CAT claim, the
agency considered the country report describing torture in Guatemala generally and
reasonably concluded that Pineda failed to meet her burden of proving it was more
likely than not that she would be subjected to torture if she returned there. See
Abufayad v. Holder, 632 F.3d 623, 631-33 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3