Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A098-805-840.
NETHIE NARA ASPELLY, AKA Magda Arlande Raphael, Petitioner, Pro se, San Diego, CA.
For ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent: James A. Hurley, Attorney, OIL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC; Chief Counsel ICE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Nethie Nara Aspelly, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' 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 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on significant inconsistencies in Aspelly's testimony regarding the incident that led her to leave Port-au-Prince and whether anything happened to her after she moved to Cap-Haitien. See id. at 1045-48 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act's " totality of the circumstances" standard). The agency reasonably rejected Aspelly's explanations for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Aspelly's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's finding that even if Aspelly is a member of the student group Association National Lycee, the country conditions evidence does not show it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to Haiti. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, her CAT claim also fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.