Norberto Barrera; Sandra Patricia Cardona Pineros; David Barrera Cardona v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORBERTO BARRERA; SANDRA
PATRICIA CARDONA PINEROS;
DAVID BARRERA CARDONA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72169
Agency Nos. A079-101-930
A079-101-931
A079-101-932
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Norberto Barrera and his family, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
FILED
JUL 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-72169 2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence adverse credibility findings, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.
2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the discrepancies between Barrera’s testimony and his sworn statement
during the airport interview as to why he came to the United States and whether he
suffered or feared harm in Colombia. See id. at 962-63 (discrepancy between
testimony and sworn airport interview constituted substantial evidence where
petitioner gave entirely different reasons for arrival in United States). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the
omission from Barrera’s asylum application that the guerrillas forced him to
remain face down on the ground without moving for 48 hours. See id. at 963
(reasonable for IJ to consider that, if truthful, petitioner would have mentioned
allegation of serious mistreatment in asylum application). Accordingly, in the
absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum claim and Barrera’s withholding
of removal claim fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Barrera’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found
not credible, and there is no evidence in the record that compels a finding that it is

-- 2 of 3 --

07-72169 3
more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Colombia, his CAT claim
also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --