ELENA TURCAN and GHEORGHE VARTIC v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELENA TURCAN and
GHEORGHE VARTIC,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70736
Agency Nos. A089-991-739
A089-991-740
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Elena Turcan and Gheorghe Vartic, natives and citizens of Moldova, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-70736
(“CAT”). We have 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.
In finding Turcan not credible, the agency relied on the omissions from
Turcan’s written statement that the police knew of her Roma ethnicity at the time
of her arrest in March 2004, and references by medical personnel to Turcan’s
Roma ethnicity after her bus accident. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1048; see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649
F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (omission constituting a material alteration of
petitioner’s story may support an adverse credibility determination). Turcan’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov, 649 F.3d at 974.
In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, petitioners’ asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Turcan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and she does not point to any other evidence in the
record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Moldova. See
id. at 1156-57.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-70736
We reject Turcan’s contention that the agency erred by accepting her witness
as a quasi-expert.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --