Court Opinion

ID: 9374332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 20:00:50.955161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.692179
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDUVIGES ARACELI PERDOMO-DE                     No.    17-70684
RECINOS,
                                                Agency No. A202-149-014
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Eduviges Araceli Perdomo-De Recinos, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying

the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID

Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part

and dismiss in part the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies between Perdomo-De Recinos’ testimony and declaration

as to the circumstances of her husband’s beating by the gang, and inconsistencies

within her testimony as to the timing of the gang’s increased monthly extortion

demand. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the

totality of the circumstances”). Perdomo-De Recinos’ explanations do not compel

a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Perdomo-De

Recinos did not present documentary evidence that would otherwise establish her

eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014)

(applicant’s documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate his testimony).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Perdomo-De Recinos’ contentions regarding

translation errors because she did not raise them below. See Barron v. Ashcroft,

358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not

presented to the agency). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony Perdomo-De

                                          2                                   17-70684
Recinos’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,

348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

      We do not reach Perdomo-De Recinos’ merits-based contentions regarding

her eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal because the BIA did not

deny relief on those grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820,

829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA).

      Because Perdomo-De Recinos does not contest the BIA’s determination that

she failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, this issue is forfeited. See

Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                          3                                    17-70684