NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA YESSENIA RODRIGUEZ-PENA 

and B. R.-A.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

WILLIAM P. BARR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 18-70208

Agency Nos. A202-136-112 &

A202-136-111

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 5, 2020**

Seattle, Washington

Before: M. SMITH and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,***

District Judge. 

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for 

the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

FILED

FEB 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Petitioners Maria Yesenia Rodriguez-Pena and B.R.-A., her minor child, 

natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (ABIA@) order dismissing their appeal. The BIA affirmed the 

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility determination and denial of 

Petitioners’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction to review under 8 

U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. 

See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioners argue

that the agency erred because the inconsistencies cited by the IJ in making his 

adverse credibility determination are minor and only relate to “dates and temporal 

issues.” See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011). The record 

does not compel such a finding. Rodriguez-Pena’s testimony about the events 

leading up to Petitioners’ departure increased the frequency and length of time 

Rodriguez-Pena was subjected to past harm and was inconsistent with her credible 

fear interview. The IJ reasonably relied on these inconsistencies in making his 

adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046.

The IJ also examined Rodriguez-Pena’s corroborating evidence and 

considered her explanations for the inconsistencies and reasonably found both to 
3

be insufficient. Rodriguez-Pena’s corroborating evidence does not address the 

frequency or length of time Rodriguez-Pena was subjected to harm, and does not 

compel a finding that the IJ’s rejection was in error. Further, the record 

surrounding Rodriguez-Pena’s explanations for the inconsistencies does not 

compel a finding that the IJ’s decision rejecting them was erroneous. See 

Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In rejecting her 

explanations, the IJ noted that Rodriguez-Pena’s credible fear interview occurred 

shortly after the alleged abuse occurred and Rodriguez-Pena gave a specific date 

(July 30, 2014) that the abuse ended. This date was inconsistent with her later

testimony. 

In short, the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to that of the IJ 

and BIA regarding Rodriguez-Pena’s lack of credibility.

1 Garcia v. Holder, 749 

F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014).

Given this finding, there is no credible evidence to support any of 

Petitioners’ claims for relief. Thus, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s 

decision to affirm the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, which was based on the same 

testimony found to be not credible. Petitioners have not shown that any

1 Because of this finding, Rodriguez-Pena’s argument regarding the timeliness of her 

asylum application based on ineffective assistance of counsel also fails for lack of 

prejudice. See Torres-Chavez v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 2009). 
4

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find, based on the record, that

Petitioners will more likely than not be subjected to torture by or with the 

acquiescence of a government official if removed. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 

1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1)). 

PETITION DENIED.