Nuvia Solis-Bronfield v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NUVIA ESMERALDA SOLIS- No. 21-70211
BRONFIELD,
Agency No. A206-225-682
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 10, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, MILLER, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Nuvia Solis-Bronfield seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision
that she lacked credibility and was not eligible for relief from removal. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review both the BIA and IJ decisions,
including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence
standard. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Solis-Bronfield
lacked credibility, due to: (1) her inconsistent testimony with respect to the dates of
her cousin’s murder and the dates she worked at a restaurant owned by Hugo
Galdamez (allegedly a narcotics trafficker who threatened to kill her); (2) other
factual inconsistencies in her testimony; and (3) the IJ’s statement as to Solis-
Bronfield’s demeanor. Although Solis-Bronfield attempted to explain her
inconsistencies by asserting her nervousness and confusion, the IJ reasonably
rejected these explanations as “implausible,” especially because the date of the
murder was “a very, very significant date.” The record does not compel the
conclusion that Solis-Bronfield’s testimony was credible.
Solis-Bronfield argues that the IJ violated her right to due process by
“rel[ying] on her own speculation about facts not in evidence (i.e. an extrajudicial
source) to impute a malicious motive to Ms. Solis Bronfield.” The IJ’s behavior did
not violate Solis-Bronfield’s due process right. See Antonio-Cruz v. INS, 147 F.3d
1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 1998). In the absence of evidence of “deep-seated favoritism
or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible,” Liteky v. United States,
2
510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994), we deny Solis-Bronfield’s petition on this ground as well.
The agency had jurisdiction over Solis-Bronfield’s removal proceedings, in
spite of a defective Notice to Appear (“NTA”). Jurisdiction vests with a defective
NTA, “so long as a notice of hearing specifying [time and place] is later sent to the
alien.” Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Solis-Bronfield was subsequently served with a notice
specifying the time, date, and place of her hearing, so jurisdiction vested.
PETITION DENIED.
3