Court Opinion

ID: 9379128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 19:00:45.471957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:49.556906
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 14 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN DE JUAN Y JUAN; MARIA INEZ                 No. 21-942
JUAN FRANCISCO; ELOISA LESVI
JUAN FRANCISCO; FRANCISCO                       Agency Nos.      A201-281-490
ESTEBAN SANTOS,                                                  A209-793-657
                                                                 A209-168-740
              Petitioners,                                       A209-793-656

  v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                             Submitted March 10, 2023**
                                Pasadena, California

Before: GILMAN,*** FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

       Juan de Juan y Juan (Juan), a native and citizen of Guatemala, and his

derivative beneficiaries (his wife, Santos Francisco Esteban, and their minor

       *
            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).
       ***
            The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
children) petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) dismissing their appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ)

denying their consolidated applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

      “Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872,

874 (BIA 1994), and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we

review both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions.” Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d

887, 891 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). We review the agency’s factual

findings—including adverse credibility determinations—concerning the denial

of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims for substantial evidence.

Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291, 1296 (9th Cir. 2022).

      The agency found not only that Juan lacked credibility and could not

sustain his burden of proof, but it also provided alternative, independently

sufficient reasons for denying each of his claims, even assuming the truth of

Juan’s testimony. Specifically, the agency concluded that Juan’s asylum

application was time-barred; that his withholding claim failed for lack of a well-

founded fear of persecution and the absence of any nexus to any cognizable

particular social group (or any other protected ground); and that he failed to

establish the requisite likelihood of torture, or government acquiescence or

consent in such torture, for CAT relief. Because Petitioners do not address these

dispositive issues “with any specificity in [their] briefs,” they have abandoned

                                        2                                      21-942
their claims for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief before this court. Rios v.

Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015).1

      Even if Petitioners had not abandoned their claims by failing to address

these dispositive holdings, their claims would still fail because the agency’s

adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence, as was

the agency’s finding that the Petitioners’ corroborating evidence was

inconsistent and insufficient to carry their burden. The IJ identified numerous

material inconsistencies in Juan’s testimony, provided him an adequate

opportunity to explain them, and sufficiently considered his explanations before

rejecting them. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011),

overruled in part on other grounds by Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135–37

(9th Cir. 2021); Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th Cir. 2013). Taking “the

totality of the circumstances into account,” substantial evidence supports the

agency’s dispositive adverse credibility determination. Kumar v. Garland, 18

F.4th 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2021).

      The petition for review is DENIED.

1
 In addition, Petitioners do not address the BIA’s analogous conclusion that
Petitioners waived any challenge to the denial of Juan’s asylum and withholding
claims before the agency by failing to “contest these issues except in the most
general of terms.”

                                        3                                    21-942