Paz Zarate v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 19, 2023
• Docket: 21-779
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VERONICA PAZ ZARATE, No. 21-779

Petitioner, Agency No. A209-129-956

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2023**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Veronica Paz Zarate, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

from a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal from

* 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). an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a), and we review the BIA’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. Nuru

v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir. 2005). We may review Paz Zarate’s

CAT claim notwithstanding her failure to raise that issue in her brief to the BIA

because the BIA addressed the issue on the merits. See Rodriguez-Castellon v.

Holder, 733 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review. The

parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not recount them here.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Paz Zarate is not entitled to

CAT relief. The IJ found Paz Zarate’s testimony to be not credible, and Paz Zarate

did not challenge that finding before the BIA. The remainder of the record,

including the country conditions report and news articles, does not compel the

conclusion that Paz Zarate is likely to be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a

Mexican government official. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009

(9th Cir. 2017).1

PETITION DENIED.

1 Paz Zarate also sought asylum and withholding of removal below. We do not address these claims because Paz Zarate does not discuss them in the body of her brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). 2