NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GLENDA BEATRIZ DOMINGUEZ- No. 18-71888 RIVERA; et al., Agency Nos. A208-170-348 Petitioners, A208-170-347 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 11, 2019** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Glenda Beatriz Dominguez-Rivera and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the * 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). Convention Against 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because of inconsistencies in Dominguez-Rivera’s testimony and an omission in her declaration. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). The explanations petitioners raised to the BIA do not compel a contrary conclusion, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000), and we lack jurisdiction to consider the contentions petitioners raise for the first time in their opening brief, see Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner exhausts “only those issues he raised and argued in his brief before the BIA”). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). In their opening brief, petitioners fail to challenge the agency’s denial of their CAT claim, thus it is waived. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issue not raised in an opening brief is waived). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 18-71888 18-71888 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Glenda Dominguez-Rivera v. William Barr 18 June 2019 Agency Unpublished 5a2f979a5e215c17c6f04ee0f6577eba7b1eefd5
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals