Jenny Josseth Recinos- Santamaria v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
PR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JENNY JOSSETH RECINOS-
SANTAMARIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70773
Agency No. A079-048-813
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jenny Josseth Recinos-Santamaria, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
FILED
FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PR/Research 07-70773 2
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for substantial evidence factual findings, including adverse credibility
determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and de
novo questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.
2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on
the omission from petitioner’s asylum application of her three alleged complaints
to the police, and whether or not the police were willing to help her was central her
claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-64 (9th Cir. 2004) (a negative
credibility finding will be upheld so long as one of the identified grounds
underlying the finding is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of
the asylum claim). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, petitioner’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Petitioner’s contention that the IJ violated her due process rights by acting in
an aggressive manner and failing to provide her with local rules is not supported by
the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --