Court Opinion

ID: 9380238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 18:00:48.04837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.723786
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIRNA MARICELA VASQUEZ-                          No.   20-72381
MEDRANO; et al.,
                                                 Agency Nos.      A208-541-632
                Petitioners,                                      A208-541-633

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

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Mirna Maricela Vasquez-Medrano and her minor child, natives and citizens

of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision

denying their application for asylum, and Vasquez-Medrano’s applications for

      *
             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).
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies between Vasquez-Medrano’s testimony and documentary

evidence, and omissions in her declaration. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility

finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also

Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2020) (inconsistencies and

omissions supported adverse credibility determination). Vasquez-Medrano’s

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 Vasquez-Medrano 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 or independently support his claim). Thus, in the

absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum claim, and Vasquez-Medrano’s

withholding of removal claim, fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 2003).

                                          2                                    20-72381
      Because Vasquez-Medrano does not contest the BIA’s determination that

she did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address it. See

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

      Vasquez-Medrano’s opposed motion to remand this case to the BIA (Docket

Entry No. 23) is denied.

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                 20-72381