N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FANY AR

YANE FAJAR

DO-PAZ; LOHANY SAM A HY HER N ANDEZFAJAR DO, Pe t i tione rs,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-71056 Age n c y Nos. A206-733-003

A206-733-004
M EM O R ANDUM *

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 August 30, 2019 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS, M c KEOW N, a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. Fany Ary ane Fa

ja rdo-Pa z (“ Pe titione r” ), on be ha lf of he rse lf a n d he r m inor da ughte r Loha

ny Sam ahy He rna nde z -Fa ja rdo, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing he r a ppe a l from

an im m igration 

# F IL ED SEP 04 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c i sion de ny ing he r a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of
re m ova l, a

nd C AT prote c t ion. W e de ny the pe tition. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252. “ W e re vie w de nia ls of a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd C AT re lie f for substa

ntia l e vide nc e and will uphold a de nia l supporte d by

re a sona ble , substa

ntia l , a nd proba t ive e vide nc e on the re c ord
c onside re d a s a

whole .” Ling Huang v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th C ir. 2014) (inte rna l c ita

tions omitte d). 1. The B IA did not c o m

m it e rror in a ffirm ing the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding. W e a fford a ge nc y c re dibility

de t e rm i nations a

“ h e a lthy m e a sure of de fe re nc e ” be c a

use “ IJs a re in the be st position to a sse s s de m e anor a nd othe r
c re d ibility

c ue s tha t we c annot re a dily

a c c e s s on re vie w.” Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2010). To overturn a n a dve rse c re dibility

finding, Pe titione r be ars the burde n to e sta blish tha t no re a s ona

ble fa c t finde r c o uld find he r te stim ony not c re dible
. S

e e Gu v . Gonzale

s , 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th C i r. 2006). She c annot do so. In this c a se , Pe titione r te stifie d inc onsiste ntly on se ve ra l issue s,
som e of whic h re a c he d the founda tion of he r c l a im
. She m iside n tifie d he r a lle ge d
a buse r, wa s inc onsiste nt a

b o ut whe the r she and he r a buse r ha d a

ny c hildre n toge the r, and provide d c onflic ting te stim ony a bout he r a buse r’ s ga

ng a ffilia tion. Whe n provide d

the opportunity

to e xpla in he r disc re pa

nt te stim ony , she re sponde d
2by

la ughing, smiling, or e xpre ssing ne rvousne ss, ra the r tha n a nswe ring the que stions pose d . While the B IA gave som e we ight to Pe t itione r’ s PTSD dia gnosis in e xpla ining this be

havior, it found tha

t the dia gnosis fa ile d to fully justify the disc re pa nc ie s in Pe titione r’ s te stim ony . Ac c ordingly , a re a s ona ble fa c t finde r
c ould c re dit the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding. 2. The B IA did not c o m

m it e rror in a ffirm ing the IJ’ s de n ia l of re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). To qua lify for C AT, Pe titione r be ars the burde n to e sta blish tha t “ it is m ore like l y

tha n not tha t [she ] would be torture d if
re m ove d to the propose d c ountry of re m o va l ,” 8 C FR § 208.16(c )(2), a nd tha t suc h torture will be “ inflic te d by or at the instiga tion of or with the

c onse n t or
a c quie sc e nc e of a public offic ia l or othe r pe rson a c ting in a n offic ia l c a

p a c ity .” 8 C .F.R . § 208.18(a)(1). As to thefirst prong, Pe titione r m ay not m e e t he r burde n by re ly ing on e vide nc e found to benot c re dible . Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th C ir. 2003). As to the se c ond prong, wehav e found tha t “ a gove rnm e nt doe s not a c quie sc e in the torture of its c itiz e ns m e re l y be c a use it is
aware of torture but powe rle ss to stop it.” Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th C ir. 2014) (inte rna l c ita tions omitte d). Pe titione r ha s not a lle ge d that Hondura s la c ks dom e stic viole nc e la ws, only tha t its e nforc e m e nt of those

3la

ws is ine ffe c tive . Sat isfy ing ne ithe r prong, Pe titione r is not e ntitle d to re lie f unde r C AT. 3. Pe titione r wa s not de n ie d due proc e ss. “ The Fifth Am e ndm e nt gua rante e s due proc e ss in deporta

tion proc e e dings.” C

ampo-Sanc he

z v . IN S , 164 F.3d 448, 450 (9th C i r. 1999). If Pe titione r c an e sta blish “ suffic i e ntly gre at” pre j udic e suc h that he r rights we re viola

te d “ in a m anne r so a s pote ntia l ly

to a ffe c t the outc om e of the p roc e e dings,” the n this C o urt m ay find a de nia l of due proc e ss ha s oc c urre d. Id. (inte rna l c ita

tions omitte d ). He re , Pe titione r ha s not e sta blishe d a ny untowa rd be havior by

the IJ or the B IA. The IJ’ s a c tive involve m e nt in Pe titione r’ s he aring doe s not viola

te due proc e ss. 8 C .F.R . § 1003.10 (a llowing IJs to que stion witne s se s in im

m igration he arings). Eve n if Pe t itione r c ould show tha t the IJ a c te d with som e bia s a ga i nst Pe t itione r, “ if the fa c tua l re c ord a de quate ly supports the de nia l of a

n a lie n’ s a

pplic a tion for re lie f, we c annot find tha t the a lle ge d bia s he ld by the IJ wa s the ba s is for the de nia l of the a pplic at ion.” Vargas-He rnande z v . Gonzale s , 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th C ir. 2007). 4. Pe titione r c ha lle nge s the B IA’ s re fusa l to a dm inistra tive l y c lose he r c a se . Eve n a ssum ing the B IA or IJ ha d the powe r to a dm inistra tive ly c lose the proc e e dings, se e Matte r of C astro-Tum , 27 I. & N. De c . 271, 271 (2018), Pe titione r

4fa ils to a

rgue tha t a dm inistra

tive c losure wa s a

ppropria te unde r the gove rning sta nda rd, se e Gonzale

z-C arav e o v . Se

ssions , 882 F.3d 885, 893 (9th C ir. 2018). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

5