SHARON BARONA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72946 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED FEB 24 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHARON JULIE BARONA, Petitioner, No. 11-72946 Agency No. A088-735-414 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Sharon Julie Barona, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistent reasons Barona provided for the murder of her partner, and the inconsistency in the record regarding when Barona entered the United States. See id. at 1047-48 (inconsistency regarding underlying events supported adverse credibility determination; adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard). The agency reasonably rejected Barona’s explanations for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Barona’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Barona failed to establish it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Colombia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-72946
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.
