Opinion
No. 18-71888
06-18-2019
GLENDA BEATRIZ DOMINGUEZ-RIVERA; et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency Nos. A208-170-348 A208-170-347 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Glenda Beatriz Dominguez-Rivera and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination because of inconsistencies in Dominguez-Rivera's testimony and an omission in her declaration. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). The explanations petitioners raised to the BIA do not compel a contrary conclusion, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000), and we lack jurisdiction to consider the contentions petitioners raise for the first time in their opening brief, see Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner exhausts "only those issues he raised and argued in his brief before the BIA"). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, petitioners' asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to challenge the agency's denial of their CAT claim, thus it is waived. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issue not raised in an opening brief is waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.