NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 2 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA MAGDALENA VALENZUELA No. 18-72555 CAMPOS; ASTRID ANAHY VALENZUELA CAMPOS, Agency Nos. A206-848-630 A206-848-631 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 16, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and EATON,*** International Trade Judge. Maria Valenzuela Campos (Valenzuela) and her minor daughter, natives and * 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 Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) (1) denial of their claim that the Immigration Judge (IJ) faulted Valenzuela for not submitting evidence that corroborated her testimony, without providing her notice and opportunity to gather such evidence and (2) affirmance of the IJ’s denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. They also now contend that the Immigration Court lacked jurisdiction over their removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. 1. The Immigration Court properly exercised jurisdiction over Valenzuela’s removal proceedings. “A notice to appear need not include time and date information” for jurisdiction to vest in the Immigration Court. Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019). Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), is not controlling because “the Immigration Court’s jurisdiction does not hinge on [8 U.S.C.] § 1229(a).” Karingithi, 913 F.3d at 1159. 2. The BIA properly rejected Valenzuela’s corroborative evidence claim. As Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011), and its progeny explain, the Real ID Act provides that an “IJ may require corroborative evidence” from a credible asylum applicant whose testimony does not alone sustain her burden of proof. Id. at 1093 (emphasis added). If the IJ so requires, he “must give the applicant notice of the corroboration that is required and an opportunity either to produce the requisite corroborative evidence or to explain why that evidence is not reasonably 2 available.” Id. Here, however, the IJ neither requested corroborative evidence nor faulted Valenzuela for not submitting such evidence. Therefore, Ren’s notice-and- opportunity requirement was inapplicable. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017). 3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Valenzuela’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Valenzuela bore the burden of proving that her status as a single mother was a “central reason” (for asylum purposes) or at least “a reason” (for withholding of removal purposes) for her past or future persecution by Honduran gangs. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–59 (9th Cir. 2017). This showing required more than a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals