NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
CLAUDIA DOLORES TOBAR- No. 08-73450
ASCENCIO; et al.,
Agency Nos. A099-534-445
Petitioners, A099-534-446
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Claudia Dolores Tobar-Ascencio and her son, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
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 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Tobar-Ascencio’s testimony and her asylum
application regarding whether her father had been kidnaped and whether he was
deceased. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable
under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”). The agency properly
rejected Tobar-Ascencio’s explanations for these inconsistencies. See Rivera v.
Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding agency finding that
explanations were insufficient). In the absence of credible testimony, Tobar-
Ascencio’s asylum claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review Tobar-Ascencio’s contention regarding
waiver of her right to legal counsel because she failed to raise this claim to the
BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction
over claims not presented below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-73450