Florencia Carrillo-Merita v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLORENCIA CARRILLO-MERITA, No. 18-71898
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-126-370
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Florencia Carrillo-Merita, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
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 created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Carrillo-Merita fails to challenge the agency’s denial of
CAT and the BIA’s denial of humanitarian asylum. Thus, these issues are waived.
See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because of the omissions in Carrillo-Merita’s credible fear interview as to her
encounter with gang members on April 15, 2015, and her father’s death. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the
totality of the circumstances); see also Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176,
1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (omissions that tell a “much different – and more compelling
– story of persecution than [the] initial application” can properly form the basis for
an adverse credibility finding (quoting Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th
Cir. 2011))). Carrillo-Merita’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Carrillo-Merita does not
2 18-71898
challenge the agency’s finding that her evidence did not otherwise establish her
eligibility for relief. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, in this case, Carrillo-Merita’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Lastly, we do not reach Carrillo-Merita’s contentions regarding the merits of
her asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We may affirm the [agency] only on
grounds set forth in the opinion under review.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-71898