Opinion
17-70551
10-19-2022
LAURA JIMENEZ PEREZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 12, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A095-739-147
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Laura Jimenez Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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 under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Jimenez Perez established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely asylum application. See Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (court retained jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional questions related to the one-year bar filing deadline; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Thus, her asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Jimenez Perez's testimony and declaration regarding when and if law enforcement assisted her, inconsistent testimony regarding the parentage of her first child, inconsistent testimony about why she used a fraudulent passport, and misrepresentations made to Nevada state officials in order to obtain a driver's license. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under "the totality of circumstances"). Jimenez Perez's explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Jimenez Perez's withholding of removal claim fails. See Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2021).
Because Jimenez Perez does not challenge the BIA's determination that she waived challenge to the IJ's denial of CAT protection, this issue is waived. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to her CAT claim.
To the extent Jimenez Perez claims the IJ violated her right to due process, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW 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).