Sandra Cruz De Galindo v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDRA CRUZ DE GALINDO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73264
Agency No. A097-354-927
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Sandra Cruz de Galindo, 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 asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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).
FILED
SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-73264
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 inconsistencies between Cruz de Galindo’s testimony and asylum
declaration as to the number of times the police came to her home and whether
they asked her to identify a suspect in custody, and based on the omission from her
asylum declaration of her alleged beating by gang members in 2003. Id. at 1048
(adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances).
Cruz de Galindo’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible
testimony, in this case, Cruz de Galindo’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Cruz de Galindo’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony the agency found not credible, and Cruz de Galindo does not point to
any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-73264
than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
government of El Salvador. Id. at 1156-57.
We reject Cruz de Galindo’s contention that the agency failed to consider
record evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --