Ramos Lopez v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 30, 2023
• Docket: 21-133
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDRA SENAIDA RAMOS LOPEZ; et No. 21-133 al., Agency Nos. A208-418-155 Petitioners, A208-418-156 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

May 16, 2023**

Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Sandra Senaida Ramos Lopez and her minor son, natives and citizens of

Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision

denying their application for asylum and Ramos Lopez’s applications for

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

* 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination based on an inconsistency regarding the number of times and

when she was extorted in-person and omissions in Ramos-Lopez’s declarations

regarding extortion phone calls and the robbery of her mother. See id. at 1048

(adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances);

Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner’s

omissions supported adverse credibility determination where they did not

constitute “a mere lack of detail” but “went to the core of his alleged fear”).

Ramos Lopez’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v.

INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Because petitioners do not challenge

the agency’s finding that Ramos-Lopez did not present sufficient corroborative

evidence that would otherwise establish eligibility for relief, we do not address

it. Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum claim and

Ramos Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348

F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

We need not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding the

merits of their asylum and withholding of removal claims because the BIA did

2 21-133 not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d

820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider

only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted)).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because, even if credible, Ramos Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not

she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government

if returned to Guatemala. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033

(9th Cir. 2014) (“torture must be ‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the

consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official

capacity’” (internal citation omitted)).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 21-133