Court Opinion

ID: 9366229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:03:39.325156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.878383
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60291     Document: 00516419686         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/04/2022

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                                                       FILED
                                                                  August 4, 2022
                                  No. 21-60291
                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                       Clerk

   Ana Marilyn Gutierrez-De Diaz; Chelsea Marilyn Diaz-
   Gutierrez,

                                                                        Petitioners,

                                       versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                       Respondent.

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                            Agency No. A208 685 125
                            Agency No. A208 685 126

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Ana Marilyn Gutierrez-De Diaz is a native and citizen of El Salvador.
   On behalf of herself and her daughter, Chelsea Marilyn Diaz-Gutierrez, she
   petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-60291       Document: 00516419686         Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                    No. 21-60291

   dismissing her appeal from the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of her
   application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
   Convention Against Torture (CAT).
          After the filing of Gutierrez-De Diaz’s appellate brief, we granted the
   respondent’s unopposed motion to remand the case to the BIA for a ruling
   on Gutierrez-De Diaz’s motion to file a late brief. On remand the BIA denied
   Gutierrez-De Diaz’s motion due to her lack of explanation for the four-
   month delay in filing the motion. Gutierrez-De Diaz’s challenge to the BIA’s
   rejection of her brief fails as she does not show that the BIA abused its
   discretion in enforcing its procedural rules. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(2).
          Despite Gutierrez-De Diaz’s assertions to the contrary, the IJ’s
   adverse credibility determination, which the BIA adopted and affirmed, was
   supported by specific reasons based on the evidence presented and was,
   under the totality of the circumstances, substantially reasonable. See Singh v.
   Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225-26 (5th Cir. 2018).
          Although     Gutierrez-De    Diaz    offers   explanations    for     the
   inconsistences, neither the IJ nor the BIA was required to accept them. See
   Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2017). Because the adverse
   credibility determination was supported by “specific and cogent reasons,”
   the record does not compel a finding that Gutierrez-De Diaz was credible or
   that no reasonable factfinder could have made an adverse credibility finding.
   Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). In addition, her
   argument that the BIA and the IJ erred in not considering her untimely
   supplemental evidence is unavailing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(h); Matter of
   Santos, 28 I. & N. Dec. 552, 561 n.4 (BIA 2022).
          The adverse credibility finding is dispositive of Gutierrez-De Diaz’s
   claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17
   F.4th 586, 596-97 (5th Cir. 2021); Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th

                                         2
Case: 21-60291     Document: 00516419686          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                   No. 21-60291

   Cir. 2012).   Because Gutierrez-De Diaz does not identify any timely
   submitted nontestimonial evidence that could independently establish her
   entitlement to CAT relief, the adverse credibility determination also defeats
   her CAT claim. See Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 597-98; Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912
   F.3d 284, 290 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2019).
          Accordingly, Gutierrez-De Diaz’s petition for review is DENIED.

                                          3