Elsa Tineo Salcedo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ELSA TINEO SALCEDO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72879
Agency No. A071-949-040
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 10, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, RYMER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Elsa Tineo Salcedo, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of a
final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which summarily affirmed
the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum,
FILED
MAY 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Salcedo does not contest the IJ’s determination that she is ineligible for1
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
-2-
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.1
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition for
review.
Because the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s order without opinion, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), we review the IJ’s order as the final agency decision, Khup
v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 2004). We review the IJ’s adverse
credibility finding “for substantial evidence and must uphold the [IJ’s] finding
unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d
915, 920 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of asylum based on an adverse
credibility finding. Salcedo testified that a terrorist group called the Shining Path
was the only source of graffiti on Salcedo’s house in Peru and threats that she
received. According to Salcedo’s asylum application and its supporting
documents, however, the MRTA – a different terrorist group – was the source of
the graffiti and threats in question. Salcedo fails adequately to account for the
inconsistencies between her testimony, supporting documentation, and written
application. Because these “discrepancies relate to the basis for [Salcedo’s]

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
alleged fear of persecution,” they go to the heart of her claim and support the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding. de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391, 393-94 (9th Cir.
1997).
Because Salcedo cannot establish eligibility for asylum, “the IJ properly
concluded that she was not eligible for withholding of removal, which imposes a
heavier burden of proof.” Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.
2006).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --