Sharon Julie Barona v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHARON JULIE BARONA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72946
Agency No. A088-735-414
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Sharon Julie Barona, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
FEB 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 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,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistent reasons Barona provided for the murder of her partner,
and the inconsistency in the record regarding when Barona entered the United
States. See id. at 1047-48 (inconsistency regarding underlying events supported
adverse credibility determination; adverse credibility determination was reasonable
under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard). The agency
reasonably rejected Barona’s explanations for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v.
Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible
testimony, Barona’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Barona failed to establish it is more likely than not that she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Colombia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-72946

-- 2 of 2 --