Viky Carolina Funes De Gonzalez v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition isn’t appropriate for publication and isn’t 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VIKY CAROLINA FUNES DE
GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73630
Agency No. A200-125-807
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and SILVERMAN, Circuit
Judges.
An asylum applicant has “the burden of persuading the [immigration judge]
that his evidence is credible.” Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 722 (9th Cir.
FILED
FEB 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

page 2
1997). Here, the immigration judge found (and the BIA agreed) that Funes De
Gonzalez’s testimony wasn’t credible because it was inconsistent.
The evidence doesn’t compel reversal. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006). Funes De Gonzalez’s claim that she was active in the
ARENA party was inconsistent with her inability to recall the date of the
presidential election in El Salvador. She also testified inconsistently about the
dates she was active in the ARENA party. Finally, Funes De Gonzalez claimed
that her husband was unaware of her political activities when they married because
she was still in school and not politically active. But this was contradicted by her
testimony that she had finished school before she married and was also politically
active in the ARENA party.
Funes De Gonzalez argues that these inconsistencies don’t go to the heart of
her claim. But the REAL ID Act eliminated the requirement that inconsistencies
upon which the agency bases an adverse credibility finding go to the heart of an
applicant’s claims. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010).
Because Funes De Gonzalez hasn’t met the standard for asylum, she can’t
meet the more rigorous standard for withholding of removal. Nahrvani v.
Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005). In addition, “substantial evidence
supports the IJ’s denial for relief under” the Convention Against Torture because

-- 2 of 3 --

page 3
Funes De Gonzalez hasn’t presented evidence that it’s “more likely than not” that
she will be tortured if returned to El Salvador. Id.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --