Norma Garcia Estrada v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MAR 16 2022
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    NORMA GARCIA ESTRADA; et al.,                    No.   17-73127
    Petitioners,                       Agency Nos.         A208-124-199
    A208-124-200
    v.                                                                  A208-124-201
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,                                         MEMORANDUM*
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 14, 2022**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
    Petitioner Norma Garcia Estrada seeks review of the denial of her
    application for withholding of removal and asylum. Garcia Estrada bases her
    claims on gang-related threats of violence she experienced in Mexico, as well as on
    *
    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).
    her status as a survivor of domestic abuse. The Immigration Judge (IJ) and Board
    of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied her applications after making an adverse
    credibility determination, an adverse credible fear determination, and a finding of
    no nexus with regard to her domestic violence claim. We have jurisdiction
    pursuant to 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(1), and we deny the petition.1
    Garcia Estrada argues the BIA abused its discretion by affirming the IJ’s
    findings that she did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and that she had
    not shown a nexus to a protected social group. But the IJ independently denied
    Garcia Estrada’s claims based on an adverse credibility determination, and she has
    forfeited any challenge to this determination by failing to raise it in her opening
    brief. See Martinez–Serrano v. INS, 
    94 F.3d 1256
    , 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). Because
    the adverse credibility determination is independently dispositive, we deny the
    petition.
    PETITION DENIED.
    1
    Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them
    here.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-73127

Filed Date: 3/16/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/16/2022