Masminah Maripin v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MASMINAH MARIPIN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70655
Agency No. A097-102-276
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Masminah Maripin, a native and citizen of Indonesia, 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
* 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).
FILED
MAY 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-70655
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility findings. Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies within Maripin’s testimony regarding alleged harm from
her husband, when she last had contact with her husband, and whether she felt
threatened by anyone other than her husband. See id. at 973 (testimony about the
events leading to petitioner’s departure goes to the heart of the claim); Alvarez-
Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003) (inconsistency was a specific
and cogent reason supporting the adverse credibility determination). Maripin’s
explanation, that she did not recall these incidents until her second hearing, do not
compel the opposite result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
Absent credible testimony, Maripin’s withholding of removal claim fails. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Maripin’s CAT
claim because she failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-70655
Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --