De Juan Y Juan v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN DE JUAN Y JUAN; MARIA INEZ No. 21-942
JUAN FRANCISCO; ELOISA LESVI
JUAN FRANCISCO; FRANCISCO Agency Nos. A201-281-490
ESTEBAN SANTOS, A209-793-657
A209-168-740
Petitioners, A209-793-656
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: GILMAN,*** FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Juan de Juan y Juan (Juan), a native and citizen of Guatemala, and his
derivative beneficiaries (his wife, Santos Francisco Esteban, and their minor
*
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).
***
The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
children) petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) dismissing their appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ)
denying their consolidated applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
“Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872,
874 (BIA 1994), and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we
review both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions.” Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d
887, 891 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). We review the agency’s factual
findings—including adverse credibility determinations—concerning the denial
of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims for substantial evidence.
Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291, 1296 (9th Cir. 2022).
The agency found not only that Juan lacked credibility and could not
sustain his burden of proof, but it also provided alternative, independently
sufficient reasons for denying each of his claims, even assuming the truth of
Juan’s testimony. Specifically, the agency concluded that Juan’s asylum
application was time-barred; that his withholding claim failed for lack of a well-
founded fear of persecution and the absence of any nexus to any cognizable
particular social group (or any other protected ground); and that he failed to
establish the requisite likelihood of torture, or government acquiescence or
consent in such torture, for CAT relief. Because Petitioners do not address these
dispositive issues “with any specificity in [their] briefs,” they have abandoned
2 21-942
their claims for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief before this court. Rios v.
Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015).1
Even if Petitioners had not abandoned their claims by failing to address
these dispositive holdings, their claims would still fail because the agency’s
adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence, as was
the agency’s finding that the Petitioners’ corroborating evidence was
inconsistent and insufficient to carry their burden. The IJ identified numerous
material inconsistencies in Juan’s testimony, provided him an adequate
opportunity to explain them, and sufficiently considered his explanations before
rejecting them. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011),
overruled in part on other grounds by Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135–37
(9th Cir. 2021); Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th Cir. 2013). Taking “the
totality of the circumstances into account,” substantial evidence supports the
agency’s dispositive adverse credibility determination. Kumar v. Garland, 18
F.4th 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2021).
The petition for review is DENIED.
1
In addition, Petitioners do not address the BIA’s analogous conclusion that
Petitioners waived any challenge to the denial of Juan’s asylum and withholding
claims before the agency by failing to “contest these issues except in the most
general of terms.”
3 21-942