Opinion
17-71547
10-20-2022
ROSA ESMERALDA GONZALEZ-BARAHONA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206-763-001
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Rosa Esmeralda Gonzalez-Barahona, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her applications 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 under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on inconsistent internal testimony regarding the frequency and timing of Gonzalez-Barahona's alleged interactions with gang members. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under "the totality of circumstances"). Gonzalez-Barahona's explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Gonzalez-Barahona's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). As this determination is dispositive, we need not reach Gonzalez-Barahona's remaining contentions regarding the merits of her asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of Gonzalez-Barahona's CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Gonzalez-Barahona does not point to any other record evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).