Hosana Ribiero-Campos v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOSANA RIBIERO-CAMPOS, ET AL.,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-185
Agency Nos.
A213-075-048
A213-075-049
A213-075-050
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and PAEZ and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Rejany Batista-de Lima Pires, her husband Weslei Pires-da Silva, and her
cousin Hosana Ribeiro-Santos1 (collectively “petitioners”) petition for review of the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1 According to petitioners’ counsel, Hosana’s last name is “Ribeiro-Santos,” not
“Ribiero-Campos,” as listed in the caption.
FILED
AUG 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of
their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252 and reviewing the denials and the underlying factual determinations for
substantial evidence, Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019),
we deny the petition.
The Board’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence.
The agency specifically and cogently explained that petitioners’ accounts were
inherently implausible because the action that they claimed precipitated their alleged
persecution occurred after the persecution had already begun. See Lalayan v.
Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 835–38 (9th Cir. 2021); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). In
addition, the agency cited numerous inconsistencies and unreasonable explanations
in petitioners’ testimony and documentary evidence regarding events that undergird
their claims for relief. These inconsistencies provide substantial evidence to support
the agency’s conclusion that petitioners cannot establish eligibility for relief with
credible evidence. See Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1093–94 (9th
Cir. 2021) (per curiam); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010).
***
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --