Unpublished Disposition, 848 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir. 1983)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Amalia Guidos-Gonzalez petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which affirmed the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) and denied her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We deny the petition for review.

Amalia Guidos-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection near El Paso, Texas, on or about January 15, 1983. On January 17, 1983, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued an order to show cause charging that Guidos-Gonzalez was deportable for entering the United States without inspection. On October 29, 1983, she conceded deportability and requested the opportunity to apply for asylum.

In her application for asylum, Guidos-Gonzalez stated that (1) she and her family had been threatened with death in El Salvador because her relatives were in the military; (2) she could not finish her college studies in El Salvador because "extreme left groups would come and take out many students;" and (3) on December 12, 1982, masked guerillas claiming to belong to an extreme left group came to her family residence and ordered them to the floor, stole "all [their] belongings," and threatened to kill them if they notified the police.¹ 

The IJ found Guidos-Gonzalez deportable, denied her application for asylum and withholding of deportation, and granted her voluntary departure to El Salvador. The BIA affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding of deportation. It found Guidos-Gonzalez's testimony lacked credibility because of serious inconsistencies between the statements in her application and her testimony. The BIA also found that even if her testimony was credible, she failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her neutral political position and that "the tragic and widespread violence affecting all Salvadoreans due to the civil war in El Salvador does not constitute persecution under the Act". Guidos-Gonzalez timely petitioned for review.

An alien seeking asylum or withholding of deportation must prove that the evidence presented in support of his or her claim is credible. See Espinoza-Martinez v. INS, 754 F.2d 1536, 1539 (9th Cir. 1985). Guidos-Gonzalez relied almost exclusively on her own testimony to support her claim for asylum.²  Though the IJ made no credibility finding, the BIA concluded that her testimony was not credible because of serious inconsistencies between statements in her application and her testimony. See Damaize-Job v. INS, 787 F.2d 1332, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986) (the BIA is empowered to evaluate the record independently and make its own credibility finding).

We will defer to BIA credibility findings if substantially supported by the record. See Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1395 (9th Cir. 1985); Saballo-Cortez v. INS, 761 F.2d 1259, 1262 (9th Cir. 1985). Serious inconsistencies between an alien's application statements and hearing testimony will support the BIA's or an IJ's incredibility finding. See Saballo-Cortez, 761 F.2d at 1265-66.

The BIA stated that Guidos-Gonzalez's testimony lacked credibility due to serious inconsistencies. First, her application stated she had relatives in the military; but she testified that she did not. Second, in her application, she asserted that the intruders who searched the house were from an extreme left group and had stolen all the family belongings; whereas, she testified she did not know which group they belonged to and that they had not taken anything. These inconsistencies place critical elements of her claim of persecution in serious doubt. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's credibility finding.

In view of the foregoing it is unnecessary for us to address the claim that the BIA failed to apply the correct legal standards in evaluating petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of deportation.³ 

The petition for review is DENIED.