Opinion
No. 14-72698
08-24-2016
MARIA CRISTINA ISLAS-ESPINOSA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A089-245-782 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Maria Cristina Islas-Espinosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. 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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies both within Islas-Espinosa's testimony, and between her testimony and record evidence, as to her medical records from 1989 and 2000. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the "totality of circumstances"). Islas-Espinosa's explanations for these contradictions do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Islas-Espinosa's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). In light of these dispositive findings, we reject Islas-Espinosa's contentions that the agency violated her due process rights by faulting her for any delays in proceedings, or by failing to grant her a final continuance. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.