Rios v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
This text of 5 F. App'x 726 (Rios v. Immigration & Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[727]*727MEMORANDUM
Maria Del Rosario Rios, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her request for asylum and withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) and § 1253(h). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § llOSafy).1 We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s adverse credibility determinations2 and we deny the petition.
To qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate that she is unable or unwilling to return to her home country because she suffered past persecution or has a well founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.3 An alien’s own testimony, when credible, can be sufficient to establish eligibility for asylum.4
The BIA properly dismissed Rios’ appeal because its adverse credibility finding is supported by the record. The facts in Rios’ testimony regarding her husband’s assassination by a political rival were completely absent from and contradicted by her asylum application which stated that she sought asylum because she feared persecution from guerrillas who “mistreated” her, “assaulted her house” and destroyed her personal belongings after she sought help from the authorities based on her activities in a “Mother’s Club.” Because these material discrepancies relate to the basis for Rios’ alleged fear of persecution and go to the heart of her asylum claim, the BIA’s credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence.5
Because Rios failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the higher standard for eligibility for withholding of deportation.6
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 F. App'x 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rios-v-immigration-naturalization-service-ca9-2001.