Manuel Morales Lopez v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 519 F. App'x 508 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL DE JESUS MORALES LOPEZ No. 08-74866
and DORA ALBERTINA DELEON
MORALES, Agency Nos. A073-220-464
A077-847-251
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ZILLY, Senior District
Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 Thomas S. Zilly, Senior United States District Judge
for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
Manuel Morales Lopez and Dora DeLeon Morales appeal from a decision by
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Their joint application rests on
an attack Lopez claims he suffered in Guatemala. After identifying material
inconsistencies between descriptions of the attack Lopez provided in his
application, at his asylum interview, and at his merits hearing, the IJ determined
that Lopez was not credible and denied both petitioners relief.
The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial
evidence that Lopez testified inconsistently about events that formed the basis of
the petitioners’ asylum claim. Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.
2011). The IJ provided Lopez the opportunity to explain his inconsistencies and
addressed why his explanations were unpersuasive. Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555
F.3d 1089, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2009). Lopez argues that the IJ placed too much
weight on the absence of corroborating testimony from his brother, but even
according this potential basis for an adverse credibility finding no weight, the other
grounds for the IJ’s adverse credibility decision were supported by substantial
evidence. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011).
The petitioners also seek review of the IJ’s decision to deny voluntary
2
departure. We lack jurisdiction to review the grant or denial of voluntary
departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030
(9th Cir. 2010). Although we may review questions of law related to voluntary
departure, the IJ’s decision was discretionary as to both petitioners and presents no
questions of law. Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
3