FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 21 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OLIVIA QUIROZ-ROMAN, No. 19-70973
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-234-195
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 16, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and BAYLSON,*** District
Judge.
Petitioner Olivia Quiroz-Roman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Michael M. Baylson, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition.
1. The BIA upheld the IJ’s denial of withholding on the basis of the adverse
credibility finding. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination.
The IJ supported the adverse credibility finding with observations of
Petitioner’s demeanor. Such a determination is entitled to deference, because “IJs
are in the best position to assess demeanor,” and the IJ provided specific cogent
reasons for its determination. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041–42 (9th
Cir. 2010).
Petitioner also omitted information in her reasonable fear interview. In her
application for relief, Petitioner expressed fear of abuse at the hands of a man
named Mario, a member of a smuggling group, who knew that she had testified
against the leader of the smuggling group in the past. Petitioner explained that
Mario knew her by the name “Vero,” but in her prior reasonable fear interview,
Petitioner told an immigration officer she used no aliases. The IJ provided
Petitioner the opportunity to explain this omission, and she said she “overlooked
it.” The IJ found this omission to be critical and so rejected her explanation. This
rejection is not in error. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973–74 (9th Cir.
2
2011) (upholding adverse credibility finding where petitioner omitted information
forming the basis of asylum application).
Finally, there were numerous inconsistencies between Petitioner’s testimony
in her hearing before the IJ and her prior asylum interviews. For example, there
were inconsistencies with respect to the number of people involved in a 2014
kidnapping incident that occurred when she had previously attempted to enter the
United States. There were also inconsistencies regarding her last date of entry into
the United States. The IJ again provided Petitioner with the opportunity to explain
these inconsistencies, but ultimately rejected Petitioner’s explanations as
unpersuasive, providing specific reasons for doing so. The IJ thus properly relied
upon these inconsistencies in finding Petitioner not credible. See Rizk v. Holder,
629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (“If the IJ reasonably rejects the alien’s
explanation ... the IJ may properly rely on the inconsistency as support for an
adverse credibility determination.”) (citation omitted).
Because the IJ’s assessment of Petitioner’s demeanor along with the
omissions and inconsistencies in her testimony are sufficient to support the adverse
credibility finding, we do not address the BIA’s alternative reasons for affirming
the IJ’s determination as to withholding of removal.
3
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner is
not eligible for CAT protection. Petitioner’s claim for relief is based on the
testimony the BIA deemed not credible, and the country conditions evidence
Petitioner presents does not compel the conclusion that she will more likely than
not experience future torture with government consent or acquiescence. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). Moreover, Petitioner failed to argue to the BIA that she is
unable to relocate, or that relocation would not eliminate the threats of future
torture she alleges. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii).
3. Petitioner’s motion for stay pending appeal, Docket No. 1, is denied as
moot.
PETITION DENIED.
4