N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IR IAM B ERENIC E R O JAS ALVAR ADO, Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-72012 Age n c y No. A203-010-803
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 19, 2020 Phoe nix, Ariz ona B e fore : TALLM AN, B YB E E, a nd B A DE, C i rc u it Judge s. Pe titione r M i riam

B e re nic e R oja s Alva

ra do (M iria

m ), a nat ive and c itiz e n of M e x ic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de c ision
a ffirm ing the Im

m igration Judge ’ s (IJ) de nia l of he r a p p lic ation for c anc e lla

tion of
re m ova l unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(a). B e c a u se the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts, 

# FIL ED NOV 30 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.we will not re c ite the m he re . W e la c k jurisdic tion to re v i e w the B IA’ s de c ision

insofa r a s it a ffirm s the de nia l of disc re tiona ry re lie f. 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(2)(B ). W e re ta in jurisdic t ion, howe ve r, to de c i de “ c onstitutiona l c la i m s or que s tions of la w.” 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(a )(2)(D). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w.

“ Whe re , a s he re , the B IA a dopts theIJ’ s de c i sion whilea dding its own
re a s ons, this c o urt re vie ws both de c isions.” Vahora v . Holde r , 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th C ir. 2011). W e re vie w a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inations for substa ntia l
e vide nc e . Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010). W e will uphold theAge nc y ’ s c re d ibility finding “ unle ss a ny re a sona ble a djudic ator would be c o m pe lle d to c onc lude to the c ontra ry .” Garc ia v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B )). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the IJ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm ination. Unde r the REAL ID Ac t, whic h a pplie s he re , “ the re is no pre sum ption tha t a n a pplic ant for re lie f is c re dible , a nd the IJ is a

uthoriz e d to ba se an a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion on ‘ the tota lity of the c i rc um sta

nc e s’ and ‘ a ll re le va

nt fa c t ors.’ ” Ling Huang v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152–53 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii)). Suc h fa c t ors inc lude “ de m e anor, c a n dor, or
re sponsive ne ss,” a s we ll a s inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n the pe t itione r’ s ora l sta te m e nts
and othe r e vide nc e of re c ord. 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). “ [I] n e va luating
2inc o nsiste nc i e s, the re le va nt c irc um sta

nc e s tha t a n IJ should c o nside r inc l ude the pe titione r’ s e xpla

nation for a pe rc e i ve d inc onsiste nc y . . . a nd othe r re c ord
e vide nc e tha

t she ds light on whethe r the re is in fa c t an inc onsiste n c y

at a ll.” Shre stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1044 (c ita

tion omi tte d). He re , the IJ ba se d his c onc lusion on a num be r of inc onsiste nc i e s be twe e n M iria m ’ s te stim o ny

at he r individual he aring a nd othe r re c ord e vide n c e . Of note , M iria m te stifie d tha

t she did not know the

re wa s m arijua

na in he r ve h ic le notwithsta

nding he r e arlie r guilty

ple a tha t she “ kne w tha

t hidde n in the ve hic le the re wa s a

qua ntity of m arijua

na . ” Far from

ignoring the

re c o rd e vide nc e , the n, the IJ re a sona

bly c onc lude d tha

t the inc o nsiste nc y

be twe e n M iria

m ’ s guilty

ple a and he r te stim ony

unde rm ine d he r c re dibility
. The re c ord thus doe s not c om pe l a
c ontra ry c onc lusion with re s pe c t to thea dve rse c re dibility de t e rm i nation. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3