Opinion
18-70092
10-25-2022
MARTHA CARRILLO CRUZ; LLAYSOR MARCELINO MENDOZA CARRILLO, Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 21, 2022 [**] San Francisco, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A208-598-953 A208-598-954
Before: HAWKINS, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Martha Carrillo Cruz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal of the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Carrillo Cruz seeks review on behalf of herself and her minor son.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination. Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2021). The IJ considered the "totality of the circumstances" and determined that inconsistencies in Carrillo Cruz's testimony, declaration, application, and other documentary evidence undermined her credibility. See id. The BIA found no clear error in the IJ's determination, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).
The BIA found no clear error in the IJ's findings that there were inconsistencies in Carrillo Cruz's testimony, declaration, application, and documentary evidence regarding the nature, duration, and timing of the attacks she alleged she endured as a result of her political activity. For example, Carrillo Cruz explained in her declaration that she attended a political debate where she was pushed to the ground and given a blow to the head. During her testimony before the IJ, Carrillo Cruz stated that the attack lasted approximately ten minutes, and she was beaten all over her body by four or five men and women. Although she was in a crowd of people, no one witnessed the attack. Carrillo Cruz also testified that she suffered a second attack on election day, September 6, 2015, but her declaration described the second attack as occurring on October 3, 2015, while a report and letter indicated it occurred on October 4, 2015. Additionally, Carrillo Cruz indicated in her declaration that her attackers stated they attacked her because she voted for the National Unity of Hope ("UNE") party. However, when asked on cross-examination whether she was attacked because she voted for the UNE party, she responded that "they didn't say that." These inconsistencies support the agency's adverse credibility determination, and Carrillo Cruz's explanations do not mandate a different result. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046-47 (9th Cir. 2010).
Contrary to Carrillo Cruz's argument, the IJ considered other documentary evidence, including a police report and a letter from the secretary of Carrillo Cruz's political party. The agency did not err by concluding Carrillo Cruz failed to establish eligibility for asylum in the absence of credible testimony. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017). Because she failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to satisfy the "greater burden of establishing eligibility for withholding of removal." Id.
Carrillo Cruz does not specifically challenge the agency's denial of her request for CAT protection, and we do not consider it here. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Nor do we consider Carrillo Cruz's unexhausted arguments that the IJ applied a subjective rather than objective test to determine credibility, failed to give her an adequate opportunity to explain the inconsistencies in her testimony, and failed to consider separately her son's eligibility for relief from removal. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION DENIED, in part, DISMISSED, in part.
[*] 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).