NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2016
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SILVIA TORRES, ) No. 13-72153
)
Petitioner, ) Agency No. A091-633-872
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM*
)
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney )
General, )
)
Respondent. )
)
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE,*** District Judge.
Silvia Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision which found that she was
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
removable1 and that she had abandoned her application for cancellation of
removal.2 We deny the petition.
Torres contends that the BIA erred when it determined that she had not
established by clear and convincing evidence that she had been inspected and
admitted into the United States,3 and, thus, that she was removable.4 We disagree.
Because of her conflicting stories, and those of her witness, substantial evidence
supported the BIA’s determination. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177
(9th Cir. 2008); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1, 112 S. Ct.
812, 815 & n.1, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992).
Torres next argues the merits of her application for cancellation of removal,
but ignores the fact that the merits of her application were not actually reached by
the BIA, or the Immigration Judge (IJ), because they deemed her application to be
abandoned. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c), (d). Her failure to raise and brief the
abandonment question before us has waived it. See United States v.
1
See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
2
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c), (d); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229b.
3
That is her burden. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(B); 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(13)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(c); see also Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d
586, 590–91 (9th Cir. 2005).
4
See 8 C.F.R. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
2
Marcia-Acosta, 780 F.3d 1244, 1250 (9th Cir. 2015). Moreover, the record
demonstrates that despite ample time (and continuances) to enable her to obtain
and present the required information, or show good cause for her failure, she did
not do so.5 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c), (d); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B).
The BIA did not err when it found abandonment.
Petition DENIED.
5
The IJ even expressed a willingness to reopen the proceedings, if she came
forward with the information at a later point. When the BIA issued its decision, it
noted that she still had not done so.
3