Court Opinion

ID: 9910157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 21:00:54.290037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:12.172314
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2305      Doc: 15         Filed: 12/13/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2305

        ANA RUBI ALFARO-HERNANDEZ; A.N.H.,

                            Petitioners,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                    Decided: December 13, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Kevin P. Dougherty, LAW FIRM OF RUIZ DOUGHERTY, Herndon,
        Virginia, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
        Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director, Spencer S. Shucard, Office of Immigration
        Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
        D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2305       Doc: 15          Filed: 12/13/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Ana Rubi Alfaro-Hernandez and her daughter, natives and citizens of El Salvador,

        petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing

        their appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Alfaro-Hernandez’s

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

        Against Torture. The Petitioners assert that the Board erred in applying law from the Court

        of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and should have applied law from this court. They also

        contend that the adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence. 1 We

        deny the petition for review. 2

               We conclude that the Board did not err in applying the law from the Fifth Circuit.

        See Herrera-Alcala, 39 F.4th at 244-53 (applying law of IJ’s location); Borovsky v. Holder,

        612 F.3d 917, 920 (7th Cir. 2010) (concluding that Board should not have applied Eighth

        Circuit law when venue was proper in Seventh Circuit); Llapa-Sinchi v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d

        897, 901 (8th Cir. 2008) (explaining that law of circuit in which venue lies is applicable).

               1
                   The Petitioners do not challenge the denial of protection under the Convention
        Against Torture. Accordingly, the issue is waived. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l
        LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party waives an argument by failing to present
        it in its opening brief or by failing to develop its argument—even if its brief takes a passing
        shot at the issue.” (cleaned up)).
               2
                  Because the IJ presided over the merits hearing and issued the order of removal
        from the immigration court in Fort Worth, Texas, venue was proper in the Court of Appeals
        for the Fifth Circuit. Herrera-Alcala v. Garland, 39 F.4th 233, 241-43 (4th Cir. 2022)
        (under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b), venue depends on location of immigration judge). But we retain
        jurisdiction and conclude that transfer to that circuit would not be in the interest of justice.
        See Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 123-24 (4th Cir. 2011).

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2305        Doc: 15         Filed: 12/13/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

               We also conclude that the adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial

        evidence. Santos-Alvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 436-37 (5th Cir. 2020). 3 An adverse

        credibility finding “must be supported by specific and cogent reasons derived from the

        record.” Nkenglefac v. Garland, 64 F.4th 251, 253 (5th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). The IJ “may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse

        credibility determination[.]”       Hammerschmidt v. Garland, 54 F.4th 282, 290

        (5th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). The IJ need not accept an asylum

        applicant’s explanation for a discrepancy. The applicant must show that a reasonable

        factfinder would be compelled to credit her explanations. Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d

        812, 817-18 (5th Cir. 2017). An adverse credibility finding may be fatal to an asylum

        application. Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 596 (5th Cir. 2021). The IJ cited several

        specific and cogent reasons for finding Alfaro-Hernandez not credible. And although not

        required, some of those reasons go to the heart of Alfaro-Hernandez’s asylum claim.

               Because the adverse credibility finding is dispositive of the agency’s denial of

        Alfaro-Hernandez’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, we deny the

        petition for review.     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               PETITION DENIED

               3
                   Our conclusion would be the same even if we applied the law from this circuit.

                                                      3