Court Opinion

ID: 9910501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 19:00:49.333118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:07.106985
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 15 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUBIA LASTENIA MENJIVAR-                        No. 21-277
RAMIREZ,                                        Agency No.
                                                A208-382-555
             Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted December 13, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: WALLACH,*** CHRISTEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Rubia Lastenia Menjivar-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing

      *
             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 Evan J. Wallach, United States Senior Circuit Judge
for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
her appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying her applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture. Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review

the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(ii);

Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2003). We assume the

parties’ familiarity with the facts and recite them only as necessary. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.

      Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of Menjivar-Ramirez’s

applications based on an adverse credibility finding. See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d

1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010) (reviewing adverse credibility finding for substantial

evidence). The IJ identified six inconsistencies in Menjivar-Ramirez’s testimony

and gave her “an opportunity to explain each inconsistency.” Barseghyan v.

Garland, 39 F.4th 1138, 1143 (9th Cir. 2022). Menjivar-Ramirez did not know or

remember critical details and was unable to fully account for any of the

inconsistencies. The IJ had also given Menjivar-Ramirez and her counsel the

opportunity to make any needed corrections to her application and supporting

documentation before she testified. The totality of the circumstances and all

relevant factors therefore support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See

Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        2                                    21-277