Opinion
No. 19-72929
11-03-2020
CORALIA DEL CARMEN CORNEJO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A216-166-778 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 26, 2020 Portland, Oregon Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Coralia Del Carmen Cornejo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports at least one basis for the IJ's adverse credibility determination. See Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that we must uphold an adverse credibility finding if substantial evidence supports even one ground relied upon). Cornejo's testimony was inconsistent with declarations submitted by her mother and brother. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that discrepancies between petitioner's testimony, declaration, and letter of membership substantially supported an adverse credibility finding). The inconsistency is not trivial: whether and when Cornejo and her mother fled their home relates directly to the threats by gang members. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that inconsistencies relating to "the events leading up to [petitioner's] departure and the number of times he was arrested" substantiated an adverse credibility determination), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046 (9th Cir. 2010). Absent credible testimony, Cornejo's asylum and withholding claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). We need not reach Cornejo's other arguments.
PETITION DENIED.