FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA FRANCISCA LINARES- No. 12-73355
MIRANDA,
Agency No. A095-810-208
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ana Francisca Linares-Miranda, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Linares-Miranda’s request
for oral argument is denied.
application 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 created by the REAL ID
Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and review de
novo claims of due process violations, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th
Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Linares-Miranda does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that her
asylum application was untimely, nor does she challenge the agency’s related
finding that she was not eligible for humanitarian asylum in light of the time bar.
Thus, we deny the petition for review with respect to her asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistency between Linares-Miranda’s testimony and declaration
regarding whether she was hospitalized for a week following her detention in 2001.
See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go
to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the
claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). In the absence of credible testimony,
Linares-Miranda’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 12-73355
Linares-Miranda’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
statements the agency found not credible, and she does not point to any other
evidence in the record that would compel the finding that it is more likely than not
she would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Linares-Miranda’s arguments
regarding the IJ’s failure to consider the possible impact of trauma in assessing her
credibility, whether she knowingly waived her right to counsel, and whether the IJ
improperly acted as a prosecutor, because she failed to raise these claims to the
BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-73355