Maria Cristina Islas-Espinosa v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA CRISTINA ISLAS-ESPINOSA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72698
Agency No. A089-245-782
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Maria Cristina Islas-Espinosa, 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 application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
* 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).
FILED
AUG 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72698
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 agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies both within Islas-Espinosa’s testimony, and between her
testimony and record evidence, as to her medical records from 1989 and 2000.
See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the
“totality of circumstances”). Islas-Espinosa’s explanations for these
contradictions do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Islas-
Espinosa’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). In light of these dispositive findings, we
reject Islas-Espinosa’s contentions that the agency violated her due process rights
by faulting her for any delays in proceedings, or by failing to grant her a final
continuance. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error to prevail on a due
process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --