Teresa Martinez-Ledesma 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TERESA MARTINEZ-LEDESMA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70033
Agency No. A098-571-031
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Teresa Martinez-Ledesma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for cancellation of removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) and (2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
AUG 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70033 2
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying
the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID
Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the numerous inconsistencies between Martinez-Ledesma’s testimony,
her witness’s testimony, and the record evidence, including discrepancies
regarding her initial entry and the time periods in which she was abused. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B)-(C); see also Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47 (“Although
inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an
inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”).
Martinez-Ledesma’s explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary
result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Martinez-Ledesma’s
remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --