NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MENOS FLORESTAL, No. 19-70974 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-271-937 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Menos Florestal, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence * 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 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 the petition for review. In his opening brief, Florestal does not contend that the BIA erred in its determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s finding that asylum was time barred, see Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived), and we do not consider Florestal’s contentions as to the merits of his asylum claim, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA). Thus, Florestal’s asylum claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Florestal’s testimony, declaration, and documentary evidence. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Florestal’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Florestal fails to challenge the agency’s finding that the documentary evidence did not independently establish his eligibility for withholding of removal. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. Thus, Florestal’s withholding of removal claim fails. Finally, Florestal does not contend that the BIA erred in its determination 2 19-70974 that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See id. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to CAT. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-70974 19-70974 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Menos Florestal v. William Barr 15 April 2020 Agency Unpublished 11704cbb251abad17c24a090ed15444f79bae011
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals