eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2023-03

Mirna Vasquez-Medrano v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIRNA MARICELA VASQUEZ-                          No.   20-72381
MEDRANO; et al.,
Agency Nos.      A208-541-632
Petitioners,                                      A208-541-633
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Mirna Maricela Vasquez-Medrano and her minor child, natives and citizens
of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying their application for asylum, and Vasquez-Medrano’s applications for
*
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).
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder,
    590 F.3d 1034
    , 1039‑40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Vasquez-Medrano’s testimony and documentary
evidence, and omissions in her declaration. See
    id. at 1048
     (adverse credibility
finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also
Mukulumbutu v. Barr,
    977 F.3d 924
    , 926-27 (9th Cir. 2020) (inconsistencies and
omissions supported adverse credibility determination). Vasquez-Medrano’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS,
    204 F.3d 1241
    ,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that Vasquez-Medrano did not present documentary evidence that
would otherwise establish her eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder,
    749 F.3d 785
    , 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant’s documentary evidence was insufficient to
rehabilitate his testimony or independently support his claim). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum claim, and Vasquez-Medrano’s
withholding of removal claim, fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
    348 F.3d 1153
    , 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
2                                    20-72381
Because Vasquez-Medrano does not contest the BIA’s determination that
she did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address it. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,
    706 F.3d 1072
    , 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Vasquez-Medrano’s opposed motion to remand this case to the BIA (Docket
Entry No. 23) is denied.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3                                 20-72381