SANDRA ZELAYA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-71857 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 20 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANDRA JONNY ZELAYA, Petitioner, No. 13-71857 Agency No. A200-695-964 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Sandra Jonny Zelaya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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 the omission of four instances of mistreatment from Zelaya’s declaration, as well as her conviction for a crime involving fraud. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of circumstances); see also Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (omission from asylum application of participation in political demonstration supported adverse credibility determination); see also Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 931, 938–39 (9th Cir. 2005) (criminal conviction involving fraud undermined credibility). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Zelaya’s CAT claim because it was based on the same statements that were found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding 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. We reject Zelaya’s contention that the agency failed to consider the country reports evidence and 2 13-71857 Salvadorian political climate in denying her application. See Fernandez v. Gonzalez, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome presumption BIA reviewed the record). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 13-71857
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
