FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GLADYS ORELLANA, Nos. 16-73028 17-70666 Petitioner, Agency No. A096-044-118 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2019** San Francisco, California Before: BYBEE, N.R. SMITH, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Gladys Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) (1) affirming the denial of her applications 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”) by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), and (2) denying the motion to reopen. We deny the petitions for review. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.1 The BIA identified five inconsistencies that supported the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. As long as one of the five cited reasons is supported by substantial evidence, we are bound to accept the adverse credibility finding, and we need not address all of the inconsistencies identified by the BIA. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, the BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s conclusion that Orellana’s testimony was inconsistent with regard to whether her daughter had a boyfriend. Orellana asserts there is no inconsistency and, even if there were, it was trivial. We disagree. Orellana claimed in her declaration that her daughter had a boyfriend and that her daughter was murdered by Balmores, a member of the Maras Salvatruchas (“MS”) gang, because her daughter refused to date him. Orellana’s claim was that, because she told the police who had killed her daughter, she feared retaliation from 1 Orellana asserts in her opening brief that the IJ violated her due process rights because the IJ failed to provide her with time to obtain corroborative evidence. However, Orellana failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA. Rather than asking the BIA to remand her case under Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011), she claimed that she “fully corroborated her claim with a plethora of supporting documents.” We therefore lack jurisdiction to address this issue. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 the gang. Any inconsistency regarding her daughter’s death—an event that was the foundation for her fear of persecution—would not be trivial. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, the details relating to whether her daughter had a boyfriend named Jonster or Jones or whether her daughter was dating Balmores were a significant part of her claim of a well-founded fear of future persecution. When questioned about this subject, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals