Carranza-Pineda v. Garland

Case: 21-60906 Document: 00516586530 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-60906
Summary Calendar FILED
December 21, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Ines Del Carmen Carranza-Pineda, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A205 194 690
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Petitioner Ines Del Carmen Carranza-Pineda, a native and citizen of
El Salvador, petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) of her appeal from the decision of the immigration judge (IJ)
that denied her application for asylum and withholding of removal (WOR)
and ordered her removal to El Salvador. She has failed to brief, and thereby
abandoned, any challenge to the BIA’s failure to grant her WOR or
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60906 Document: 00516586530 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2022
No. 21-60906
humanitarian asylum. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.
2003).
According to Petitioner, the agency erred by failing to require the
Department of Homeland Security to produce the transcript for her
reasonable-fear interview, and the IJ violated her due process rights by failing
to give her an opportunity at the asylum hearing to address the discrepancies
in her statements. We have jurisdiction to review an issue arising in a removal
proceeding only if the petitioner “has exhausted all administrative remedies
as of right by presenting each issue to the BIA.” Hernandez-De La Cruz v.
Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Due process claims generally do
not need to be exhausted, but there is an exception “for procedural errors
that are correctable by the BIA,” such as the one alleged here. Roy v. Ashcroft,
389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004). Petitioner failed to exhaust these
correctable procedural issues before the BIA, so we lack jurisdiction to review
them. See Hernandez-De La Cruz, 819 F.3d at 786; Roy, 389 F.3d at 137.
There is no merit to Petitioner’s contention that the agency erred in
denying her application for asylum based on her lack of credibility. She has
first failed to show that the BIA erred by applying clear-error review to the
IJ’s credibility finding. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). She has also failed to
show that the agency’s adverse credibility determination was not supported
by substantial evidence. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir.
2017). By identifying “specific inconsistencies” and “crucial omissions,”
the agency “supported its determination with specific and cogent reasons
derived from the record.” Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir.
2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (providing that a factfinder may rely on an inconsistency
or inaccuracy in an applicant’s statement even if it does not “go[] to the heart
of the applicant’s claim”). As we have stated, “[n]either an IJ nor the BIA
2
Case: 21-60906 Document: 00516586530 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2022
No. 21-60906
is required to accept a petitioner’s explanation for the plain inconsistencies
in her story.” Morales, 860 F.3d at 817 (internal quotation marks, brackets,
and citation omitted). Neither is there merit in Petitioner’s assertion that the
agency erroneously conflated the issues of credibility and corroboration. See
Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 657-58 (5th Cir. 2012).
Petitioner has failed to show that it is clear from the totality of the
circumstances that no reasonable factfinder could have made an adverse
credibility determination in her case. See Morales, 860 F.3d at 817. Because
Petitioner’s asylum application relies solely on her own testimony and her
birth certificate, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is dispositive
here. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we need
not consider her contentions that the agency erred by treating the lack of
corroborative evidence as an independent basis for denying her asylum claim
and that the BIA erred by failing to consider the asylum claim on its merits.
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976).
The petition for review is DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART.
3