MEMORANDUM **
Petitioner Idolina Bustos Pacheco, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the Immigration Judges (IJ) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on an adverse credibility determination. Bustos Pacheco claims her son Carlos Yahir Miranda Bustos as a derivative beneficiary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final orders of removal. “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). “Factual findings ‘are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’ ” Id., quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “When the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law ․, our review is limited to the BIAs decision, except to the extent that the IJs opinion is expressly adopted.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). We deny the petition.
Bustos Pacheco testified that she was extorted by unspecified people and that her older son Juan Carlos was kidnapped in 2015. The IJ found numerous inconsistencies within Bustos Pachecos testimony and between her oral and written statements relating to her use of other names, the timeline of the extortion, the timeline of the kidnapping, the ransom negotiations with the kidnappers, her experience with kidnapping specialists, and the revocation of her business licenses. In affirming the IJs adverse credibility determination, the Board cited the IJs finding of “numerous inconsistencies within the testimony of [Bustos Pacheco] and between [Bustos Pachecos] testimony and the documentary evidence in the record.” The Board addressed Bustos Pachecos explanation for those inconsistencies that she is “forgetful” and held that the answer is “insufficient to excuse the sheer number of inconsistencies” identified by the IJ.
Bustos Pacheco does not contest these inconsistencies. She argues that the IJ failed to consider the totality of the circumstances, citing Carlos Yahirs testimony, which the IJ found credible, and the corroborating evidence. However, the corroborating evidence creates another source of inconsistencies. Several letters written by Bustos Pachecos family state that her older son Juan Carlos was kidnapped on October 20, 2016, after Bustos Pacheco entered in the United States in November 2015. On cross examination, Bustos Pacheco explained that her family members writing together made a mistake. Bustos Pacheco also argues that her sons testimony corroborated “certain aspects” of her testimony, relating to “the prominence of their restaurant, the threats, and the harm to Juan Carlos.” However, Carlos Yahirs testimony was limited, did not substantially address the harm to Juan Carlos, and did not rehabilitate Bustos Pachecos testimony.
Accordingly, the record does not compel the conclusion that the adverse credibility determination was erroneous. The Board properly concluded that Bustos Pacheco did not carry her burden with respect to any of her requested relief. We need not reach Bustos Pachecos argument that she was persecuted on account of her family. The petition for review is DENIED.