MEMORANDUM **
Rita Gloria Guzman-Borjas and her son, Angel David Linares-Guzman,
1
petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the immigration judges (IJ) denial of Guzman-Borjass applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIAs adverse credibility finding. Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013). In her credible fear interview, Guzman-Borjas stated that Angels father, Miguel, beat her three times. During her hearing, Guzman-Borjas testified that Miguel beat her at least twelve times. “Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioners claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight,” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046–47 (9th Cir. 2010), and Guzman-Borjass testimony about the number of beatings has such great weight. It also presents a more compelling claim of persecution. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2020). And there were sufficient indicia of reliability to permit the BIA to consider Guzman-Borjass credible fear interview because it was conducted under oath with an interpreter and included contemporaneous notes. See Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2020).
Guzman-Borjass inconsistent descriptions of the nature of her relationship with Miguel also support the adverse credibility finding because these facts “form the basis of the asylum claim,” Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011), and “even a petitioners minor inconsistencies, when aggregated or when viewed in light of the total circumstances, may undermine credibility.” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043 n.4.
Though Guzman-Borjass failure to report being raped by Miguel on her asylum application cannot support the adverse credibility finding because the IJ never provided her with a reasonable opportunity to explain the omission, see Perez-Arceo v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016), we uphold the BIAs credibility determination because the other inconsistencies are of “great weight,” see Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1047. We therefore do not reach Petitioners’ challenges to the BIAs decision on the merits of the asylum and withholding claims.
PETITION DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Angel David was a rider on Guzman-Borjass asylum application.
2
. Guzman-Borjas does not seek review of the denial of her claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture.