MARIA ISLAS-ESPINOSA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72698 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED AUG 24 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA CRISTINA ISLAS-ESPINOSA, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72698 Agency No. A089-245-782 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 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 * 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). 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, IslasEspinosa’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. 2 14-72698
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.
