FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 14 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA CELIDA MENDOZA TORRES; No. 18-71364 et al., Agency Nos. A089-285-077 Petitioners, A206-519-208 A206-519-209 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 8, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: GRABER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and KOBAYASHI,*** District Judge. Lead Petitioner Maria Mendoza Torres ("Petitioner") and her minor children, Luis Fernando Jimenez Mendoza and Aide Guadalupe Jimenez Mendoza, are * 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 Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. natives and citizens of Mexico. They seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") final order affirming the immigration judge’s ("IJ") denial of their requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We deny the petition. 1. The BIA determined that the adverse credibility determination was dispositive in this case and declined to address Petitioner’s other arguments. Because the BIA did not address Petitioner’s social group or other arguments, those questions are not before us. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that our review is limited to the grounds on which the BIA relied). 2. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review). The BIA relied on numerous inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony, her application and supporting documents, and her witnesses’ testimony. We must uphold an adverse credibility determination if substantial evidence supports even one of those grounds. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2011). Petitioner’s testimony about her son’s kidnapping was inconsistent with her application and supporting documents. Although the discrepancy about the year of her son’s first kidnapping may have been a typographical error, Petitioner’s 2 descriptions of what occurred on each occasion also were inconsistent. Her original application stated that her son was "taken out from school and put in a black truck" but provided no date or additional detail. The application said nothing about Petitioner herself being in contact with cartel members. But in a supplemental declaration, Petitioner stated that the cartel kidnapped her son twice, and each time armed cartel members met Petitioner at her son’s school and took her to the house where they were holding him. Then, at her merits hearing, Petitioner testified that girls from her son’s school, not cartel members, first told her that he had been taken. She testified that both times the cartel had called her at her home and had come there to take her to her son. The testimony of Petitioner’s witnesses did not ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals