NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Everilda Tomas-Jacinto; Flavio Grimaldo No. 21-1156 Lopez-Tomas; Wilfredo Valdemar Lopez- Tomas; Janet Consuelo Lopez- Agency Nos. A209-761-841 Tomas; Cristian Vladimir Lopez-Tomas, A209-761-842 A209-761-843 Petitioners, A209-761-844 A209-761-845 v. Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney MEMORANDUM* 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. Everilda Tomas-Jacinto, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and her derivative beneficiaries (four of her six children) petition for review of an order * 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. by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from an order of an immigration judge (IJ) that denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review. Questions of law are reviewed de novo. See Soto-Soto v. Garland, 1 F.4th 655, 659 (9th Cir. 2021). Factual findings are reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard, meaning that “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291, 1296 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020)). The IJ found that Tomas-Jacinto was not a credible witness, but ultimately denied her claims on the merits even assuming that she was credible. Her appeal was reviewed and dismissed by the BIA. “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with and incorporates specific findings of the IJ while adding its own reasoning, we review both decisions.” Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). Because the BIA incorporated the decision of the IJ, we refer to the entities collectively as “the agency” below. 1 Tomas-Jacinto’s children are derivative beneficiaries only of her asylum claim. See Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1083 (9th Cir. 2013) (“The withholding of removal statute makes no . . . allowance for derivative beneficiaries.”); Ali v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 780, 782 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing there is no derivative relief under CAT). Thus, for simplicity we refer only to Tomas-Jacinto. 2 21-1156 1. The agency found that Tomas-Jacinto failed to demonstrate a well- founded fear of persecution because she did not establish that she was unable to internally relocate within Guatemala to avoid the alleged persecution. This is a dispositive finding for both asylum and withholding. See Akosung v. Barr, 970 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The asylum regulation makes asylum unavailable if ‘[t]he …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals