NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FREDY ARMANDO VALDEZ-VASQUEZ, No. 15-73854 Petitioner, Agency No. A072-544-053 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 9, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: IKUTA, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Fredy Valdez-Vasquez (Valdez), a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In his * 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). application, Valdez claimed he was targeted for recruitment and threatened by the guerilla forces in Guatemala because of his service in the Guatemalan military. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying substantial evidence review). 1. As an initial matter, Valdez did not address the agency’s credibility determination or the agency’s determination that he failed to demonstrate entitlement to CAT protection. This court reviews “only issues that are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.” Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of Univ. of Cal. v. Wu, 626 F.3d 483, 485 (9th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6). Valdez’s cursory and conclusory references to the credibility findings, and his inaccurate statement that the IJ did not analyze the merits of his CAT claim, are not enough to raise the issues “specifically and distinctly” for the court’s review. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.”). He has thus forfeited any challenges to those findings. In any event, the agency’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence. 2. The agency’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.1 The BIA relied on three inconsistencies between Valdez’s 1 Because Valdez filed his claim for asylum before May 11, 2005, the Court must apply the pre-REAL ID Act standards for adverse credibility findings. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1021 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009). Under our pre-REAL ID Act 2 testimony and his written materials: (i) contradicting his application and supplemental declaration, Valdez testified to the IJ that he did not require an ambulance or any other medical care after he was attacked by the guerillas; (ii) contradicting again his supplemental declaration, Valdez testified that ex-guerilla members did not threaten his family; and (iii) contradicting his application and supplemental declaration, Valdez testified that he did not capture any guerillas while in the military. All three inconsistencies, which Valdez could …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals