NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SONIA YIRLEY NAVAREZ-GARZON,* No. 19-70972 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-674-663 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM** Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2020*** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, COOK,**** and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Sonia Narvaez-Garzon challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the * The official caption misspells Narvaez-Garzon’s surname as “Navarez-Garzon.” See AR 64. We adopt the correct spelling here. ** 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 Deborah L. Cook, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We DENY in part and DISMISS in part the petition for review. A citizen of Colombia, Narvaez-Garzon entered the United States without authorization in 2018. The Department of Homeland Security apprehended her and initiated removal proceedings. The immigration judge (“IJ”) found Narvaez-Garzon removable, but Narvaez-Garzon applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. In her application, she stated that a guerilla commander in Colombia raped her and that she gave birth to a daughter as a result. She alleged that when the commander learned about the daughter fifteen years later, he threatened to kill Narvaez-Garzon, abducted the child for several months, and murdered Narvaez-Garzon’s aunts, uncles, and cousins. After cataloguing numerous instances of inconsistent, nonresponsive, and implausible testimony, and noting Narvaez-Garzon’s “evasive” demeanor and lack of corroborating evidence, the IJ found her narrative not credible and denied her application for asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ alternatively held that— even assuming credibility—Narvaez-Garzon failed to show she suffered persecution or reasonably feared persecution due to membership in a particular social group, a necessary prerequisite to asylum and withholding-of-removal relief here. Finally, the IJ determined that Narvaez-Garzon could not establish eligibility for CAT protection because she did not show that she was more likely than not to be tortured 2 if returned to Colombia or that the Colombian government would acquiesce in her torture. On appeal, the Board sustained the IJ’s alternative holding without reaching the IJ’s credibility finding. Narvaez-Garzon now seeks review of the Board’s order and moves to stay removal. Asylum. Narvaez-Garzon argues that the IJ erred in finding her testimony supporting asylum not credible. She did not challenge the IJ’s credibility finding to the Board, however, and the Board deemed it unnecessary to reach the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. It instead dismissed Narvaez-Garzon’s appeal on the ground that she failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. We lack jurisdiction to address Narvaez-Garzon’s unexhausted ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals