Maria Elena Absalon Linares v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 436 F. App'x 752 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA ELENA ABSALON LINARES, No. 10-71245
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-806-262
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 6, 2011
Seattle, Washington
Before: SCHROEDER, McKEOWN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Elena Absalon Linares, a native and citizen of Venezuela, petitions
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and cancellation
of removal. Absalon Linares asserted past persecution and a fear of future
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
persecution on account of her political opinion. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial
of asylum and withholding relief on adverse credibility grounds, and deemed
Absalon Linares’s CAT and cancellation of removal claims waived. Since
Absalon Linares’s asylum application was filed prior to 2005, pre-REAL ID
standards apply.
Absalon Linares first challenges the adverse credibility finding. However,
this challenge is without merit because the BIA offered a specific and cogent
explanation for disbelieving Absalon Linares. See Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250,
1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that the BIA “must offer a specific, cogent
reason for any stated disbelief” and that as “long as one of the identified grounds is
supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [Petitioner’s] claim of
persecution, we are bound to accept the . . . adverse credibility finding”). Absalon
Linares omitted the alleged physical assault from her asylum application, which
she claimed at the hearing had led to her departure from Venezuela. The BIA
explained that it disbelieved Absalon Linares’s explanation that the reason for the
omission was because her application was filled out by a notario. As the BIA
explained and the record shows, Absalon Linares’s asylum application did not
indicate that anyone other than Absalon Linares filled out the application, and
Absalon Linares admitted that she did not correct the application before the asylum
2
officer. Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s explanation. Since Absalon
Linares’s omission addresses the reason for her leaving Venezuela, it goes to the
heart of her claim, and was therefore an appropriate basis for the adverse
credibility finding.
The BIA also properly found that Absalon Linares failed to present
sufficient corroborating evidence to overcome the adverse credibility finding. See
Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[W]hen an applicant’s
credibility is in question, and he or she fails to produce evidence that is ‘non-
duplicative, material, and easily available’ the IJ or BIA may make an adverse
credibility finding.”) (quoting Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2000)).
As the BIA correctly found, Absalon Linares “failed to present reasonably
available corroboration, such as a statement from her mother setting forth the
mother’s efforts to obtain hospital records relating to” Absalon Linares.
Absalon Linares next argues that the BIA erred by not determining whether
she satisfied the eligibility requirements of asylum and withholding of removal.
However, the adverse credibility finding in this case completely undermined
Absalon Linares’s application for relief. Cf. Al-Harbri v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 891-
94 (9th Cir. 2001) (using substantial documentary evidence to establish facts
essential to the objective element of an asylum claim). Thus, the BIA properly
3
relied on such finding to conclude that Absalon Linares failed to establish
eligibility for asylum. The BIA was not required to make any findings unnecessary
to the disposition of this case. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)
(“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
Finally, Absalon Linares’s argument that translation errors violated her due
process rights has been waived because Absalon Linares did not raise this issue in
her brief to the BIA. The issue is unexhausted and this court lacks jurisdiction to
review it. Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION DENIED.
4