MILAGROS CERROS-HENRRIQUEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-73067 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MILAGROS CERROS-HENRIQUEZ, Petitioner, No. 13-73067 A72-177-101 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Respondent. On Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Milagros Cerros-Henriquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing an 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). for substantial evidence findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on an inconsistency between Cerros-Henriquez’s testimony and written statements as to whether she was present when guerillas assaulted her family. See id. at 1043. We reject Cerros-Henriquez’s contention that there can be no adverse credibility finding where the oral testimony diminishes, rather than enhances the claim. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting a per se rule that whenever inconsistencies weaken an asylum claim they cannot serve as the basis of a credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony, CerrosHenriquez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-73067
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.
