Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a petition for review by a Philippine native contesting the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of her appeal against an immigration judge's denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The court evaluated the petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, applying the substantial evidence standard. The immigration judge found the petitioner not credible due to significant inconsistencies in her testimony, asylum application, and medical reports, which the court upheld. Although the petitioner presented medical evidence to explain her inconsistent testimony, her claims of persecution by the New People's Army lacked corroborative evidence and did not constitute persecution on a protected ground. Additionally, the petitioner did not advance arguments regarding withholding of removal, leading the court to forgo addressing this issue. The court denied the petition for review, rejected the request for oral argument, and stayed the voluntary departure period pending the mandate's issuance. The decision is unpublished and not citable in other circuits except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Adverse Credibility Determination in Asylum Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies in the petitioner's testimony and supporting documents.
Reasoning: The IJ's adverse credibility finding was based on significant inconsistencies in Yambao's testimony, her asylum application, and the medical reports she provided.
Asylum Claims Based on Persecution Groundssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the petitioner's allegations of extortion and other actions by the NPA did not meet the legal definition of persecution based on a protected ground.
Reasoning: The alleged extortion and other actions by the NPA do not qualify as persecution based on a protected ground.
Jurisdiction and Standard of Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviewed the case under its jurisdiction granted by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, applying the substantial evidence standard.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews the case for substantial evidence.
Requirement to Argue All Grounds for Reliefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner's failure to argue eligibility for withholding of removal resulted in the court not addressing this potential relief.
Reasoning: The court did not address Yambao's eligibility for withholding of removal due to her failure to argue this point.