Olman Mejia Mejia v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OLMAN ROSENDO MEJIA MEJIA, No. 11-73236
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-964-177
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Olman Rosendo Mejia Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Mejia has not raised any challenge to the agency’s dispositive finding that
his asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Mejia’s testimony was both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with
the documentary evidence regarding the timing of his political activities and his
attack. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1270 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence
of credible testimony, Mejia’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Mejia’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found
not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is
more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Honduras, his CAT claim
also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
2 11-73236
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Mejia’s contention that the IJ was
biased and prejudiced because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider
due process challenges that have not been administratively exhausted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-73236