NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT SILIA B ETZAB E R

AM IREZ- ) Nos. 15-71480 GAR C IA, ) 15-71809 ) Pe titione r, ) Age n c y No. A097-559-607 ) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, ) Attorne y Ge ne ra l, ) ) R e sponde nt. ) )

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M a

rc h 13, 2018 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd M c KEOW

N, C i rc uit Judge s , a

nd B ENITEZ, *** Distric t Judge
. Silia

R am i re z -Garc ia , a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of



# FIL ED APR 16 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honora

ble R o ge r T. B e nite z , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) dism i ssa l of he r a ppe a l from

the Im m i gration Judge ’ s (IJ) de nia l of he r m otion for te rm ination of proc e e dings, 1 he r a pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l , 2 and he r a

p plic ation for C onve ntion Aga inst Torture 3 (C AT) re lie f. 4 She a lso pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s dism issa l of he r a

ppe a l from

the IJ’ s de nia l of he r m otion for re c onside ration. 5 W e de ny the pe titions in pa

rt a nd dismiss for la c k of jurisdic tion in pa rt. (1) R am ire z c la im s tha t proc e e dings should ha

ve be e n te rm inate d

on the ba sis tha t she wa s e ntitle d to Unite d State s c itiz e nship be c a use he r fathe r ha d be c om e a c itiz e n. Howe ve r, in he r a ppe a l to theB IA she fa ile d to de ve lop the issue in he r brie f, a s a

re s ult of whic h it de e m e d he r a ppe a l a ba ndone d in tha

t
re spe c t. The re c ord supports tha t de t e rm ination. Se e Abe bev . Muk ase y , 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ) (pe r c uriam ); Singh v
. Ashc roft , 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th C ir. 2004). Thus, we la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r that c la i m . Se e

1 8 C .F.R . § 1239.2(f). 2 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3). 3 Unite d Nat ions C onve ntion Agai nst Tortureand Othe r C rue l, Inhum an or De gra ding Tre atm e nt or Punishm e nt, adopte d De c . 10, 1984, S. Tre aty

Doc . No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, im ple m e nte d

at 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.18. 4 Appe a l No. 15-71480. R am ire z doe s not se e k re vie w of the de nia l of he r a pplic ation for a s y lum
. 5 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(1), (2); se ealso 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(6). 2Abe be , 554 F.3d a t 1208. (2) A de te rm ination by the B IA that a

n a l ie n is not e ligiblefor withholding of rem o v a l or C AT re lie f “ m ust be uphe ld if ‘ s upporte d by re a sona

ble , substa ntia l, a n d proba tive e vide nc e on the re c ord c onside re d a s a whole .’ ” IN

S v
. Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992);
se e a lso Tampubolon v
. Holde r , 610 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th C ir. 2010)
. Its de te rm i nation “ c an be re ve rse d only if the e vide nc e pre se nte d . . . wa s suc h tha t a
re a s ona ble fa c t finde r would ha

ve to” c om e to the oppositec o nc lusion. EliasZac arias , 502 U.S. a

t 481, 112 S. C t. at 815. W h e n a n a l ie n se e ks to ove rturn the B IA’ s a dve rse de te rm ination, thea lie n “ m u s t show tha

t the e vide nc e [she ] pre s e nte d wa s so c om

pe lling tha

t no re a sona

ble fa c tfinde r c ould fa il to find”in he r favor. Id. at 483–84, 112 S. C t. at 817. Thesa m e sta nda rd a pplie s to c re dibility de te rm i nations. Se eLanza v . Ashc roft , 389 F.3d 917, 933 (9th C ir. 2004); Alv arezSantos v . IN

S , 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th C ir. 2003). Howe v e r, whe n a de te rm i nation is ba se d upon c re dibility , “ ‘ a spe c ific , c oge nt re a son for a ny sta te d disbe lie f’ ” m

ust be offe re d
. Guo v . Ashc roft , 361 F.3d 1194, 1199 (9th C ir. 2004);
se e a lso Valde rrama v . IN S , 260 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th C ir. 2001) (pe r c uriam ). He re the B IA’ s de c i sion re ga rding R am ire z ’ s c re d ibility is supporte d by

3substa

ntia l e vide nc e . 6 It prope rly note d the inc onsiste nc y

in he r storie s re ga

rding he r involve m e nt in thedrug c rim e for whic h she ha d be e n c onvic t e d. 7 It a lso note d the a m ount of drugs involve d a nd he r pe c unia

ry purpose . Thus, theB IA did not
e rr whe n it de t e rm ine d tha t she ha d be e n c onvic te d of a pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e , 8
e spe c ia l ly in light of the

“ strong pre sum

ption tha t drug tra ffic king offe nse s a re pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e s.” 9 Thus, R am i re z wa s not e ligiblefor withholding of
re m ova l. M ore ove r, the e vide nc e in the re c ord doe s not c om p e l a de te rm ination tha

t it is m o re like ly

tha n not tha t R am ire z would betorture d in M e xic o. Thus, sheis not
e ntitle d to C A T re lie f. Se e W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th C ir. 2009); A lmaghzar v . Gonzale s , 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th C ir. 2006); N ahrv ani v
. Gonzale s , 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th C ir. 2005).

6 W e note tha

t in som e re spe c ts the B IA se e m s to ha ve a dopte d the re a soning of the IJ a nd in othe rs it c ontribute d its own re a soning. W e have , the re fore , re vie we d both de c isions. Se e K

umar v . Holde r , 728 F.3d 993, 998 (9th C ir. 2013); se e a lso Ai J

un Zhi v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th C ir. 2014); c f . Malhi v
. IN S , 336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th C i r. 2003)
. 7 The fa c t tha

t som e he arsay

wa s re lie d upon wa s not fa ta l; tha t e v ide nc e wa s re lia ble and c ould be c o nside re d. Se eGu v . Gonzale s , 454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th C ir. 2006).

8 Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3)(B )(ii); se ealso Anay a -Ortiz v . Holde r , 594 F.3d 673, 677–78 (9th C ir. 2010); In reN –A–M– , 24 I. & N. De c . 336, 342 (B .I.A. 2007). 9Migue l-Migue l v . Gonzale s , 500 F.3d 941, 949 (9th C ir. 2007); s e ealso Re ndon v . Muk

ase y , 520 F.3d 967, 976 (9th C ir. 2008);

4(3) The B IA did not e rr 1 0 whe n it de t e rm i ne d tha t the IJ ha d prope rly de nie d the m otion for re c onside ration; 1 1 a s it indic ate d, the e vide nc e she pointe d to did not underm ine the a dve rse de te rm inations prope rly m a d e by the IJ a nd the B IA in the ir origina l de c isions. 1 2 Pe tition DISM ISSED in pa rt, a nd DENIED in pa

rt.

1 0 Se e E du v
. Holde r , 624 F.3d 1137, 1142 n.4 (9th C i r. 2010) ; Se mbiring v
. Gonzale s , 499 F.3d 981, 983–85 (9th C ir. 2007) ; C a no-Me r ida v . IN

S , 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th C ir. 2002); s e e also Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1262–63 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ). 1 1 Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(2); se ealso 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(6). 1 2 Se e N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990, 992–93 (9th Cir. 2010). 5