Rosa Garcia-Linares v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 13 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA ESTEFANIE GARCIA-LINARES, No. 18-72941
Petitioner, Agency No. A202-144-154
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Rosa Estefanie Garcia-Linares petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the decision
of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1 We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review in part and
dismiss in part.
Garcia-Linares’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail because
the IJ reasonably discounted her testimony—the only evidence offered to support
the requested relief—after concluding Garcia-Linares was not credible. As the
BIA noted, the inconsistencies in Garica-Linares’s testimony cited by the IJ were
“significant,” and Garcia-Linares was unable to explain these inconsistencies
despite being given the opportunity to do so. On appeal, Garcia-Linares states that
these inconsistencies were due to her “nervous state,” an argument that was
considered and fairly rejected by the IJ. Because substantial evidence supports the
adverse credibility finding, and because Garcia-Linares offers no other evidence in
support of her claims for asylum and withholding of removal, these claims were
properly rejected.2 See, e.g., Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007, 1009
1
The BIA concluded that Garcia-Linares waived any challenge to the IJ’s
denial of her CAT claim by failing to present any substantive argument in support
of this claim in her appeal to the BIA. Therefore, she did not exhaust her CAT
claim, and we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203,
1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (per curiam); see also Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d
1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that review of the petitioner’s brief to the BIA
confirmed that he failed to argue he was entitled to CAT relief before the BIA, and
thus the BIA properly found he did not challenge the IJ’s CAT determination).
2
The agency also rejected Garcia-Linares’s claim for asylum on the
alternate ground that she “did not establish that she was targeted on account of her
membership” in any protected group. We need not reach Garcia-Linares’s
2
(9th Cir. 2017).
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
challenge to that finding because the agency’s adverse credibility finding is
dispositive.
3