Elizabeth Pineda Zialcita 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELIZABETH PINEDA ZIALCITA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72986
Agency No. A071-595-883
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Elizabeth Pineda Zialcita, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72986 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Zialcita testified inconsistently concerning her level of political
involvement and whether she was a member of a political party, and because
Zialcita admitted she told the asylum officer she was not personally threatened
with harm in the Phillippines. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th
Cir. 2001) (inconsistencies related to basis for alleged fear of persecution go to the
heart of the claim). The IJ reasonably found Zialcita’s explanations for the
inconsistencies unconvincing. See Rivera, 508 F.3d at 1275. In the absence of
credible testimony, Zialcita failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
Because Zialcita’s CAT claim is based on testimony the agency found not
credible, and no other evidence in the record compels a finding that it is more
likely than not she would be tortured if she returned to the Philippines, her CAT
claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --