NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUISA BACA-BACA; JOAN ENRIQUE No. 18-71793 MARTINEZ-BACA, Agency Nos. A208-980-041 Petitioners, A208-980-040 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: GOULD and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and CHEN,*** District Judge. Luisa Baca-Baca (“Baca-Baca”) and her 15-year-old son Joan Enrique Martinez-Baca (“Joan”), citizens and natives of Honduras, petition for review of * 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 Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Baca-Baca testified that she was in a 33-year relationship with Oswaldo Martinez (“Oswaldo”), who physically and emotionally abused her and sexually assaulted her. In March 2016, the Mara 18 gang beat Joan and threatened to kill him and his mother after he resisted their efforts to recruit him. Baca-Baca took Joan to the United States, where they were charged with removability as aliens present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. The IJ denied their applications for asylum and withholding of removal, citing a partial adverse credibility determination, Baca-Baca’s failure to establish a nexus to a protected group, and Joan’s failure to show that his proposed social group was distinct. The IJ further denied their application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA affirmed, denying Baca-Baca and Joan’s request for humanitarian asylum as well. Substantial evidence supports the credibility determination. Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). The IJ based his adverse credibility determination on relevant factors, including Baca-Baca’s demeanor and inconsistencies between her oral and written statements. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Baca-Baca’s failure to remember whether Oswaldo resumed 2 the abuse within a matter of days or years after his arrest could not be excused by “the normal limits of human understanding and memory.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, the IJ determined that Baca-Baca was “unduly nervous,” and that she testified in a “rather hurried and agitated way,” speaking before the translation was completed. We afford credibility determinations based on an applicant’s demeanor “special deference.” Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Baca-Baca’s argument that she only spoke before the translation was completed three times does not compel the opposite conclusion. In addition, Baca-Baca has not established a due process claim. The IJ properly gave Baca-Baca the opportunity to explain the inconsistencies during the June 19, 2017 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals