NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOLVIA MEJIA-ALFARO; ISAI No. 19-72055
OTONIEL MATEO-MEJIA,
Agency Nos. A202-130-609
Petitioners, A202-130-608
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 10, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: CHRISTEN and BADE, Circuit Judges, and FEINERMAN,** District
Judge.
Nolvia Mejia-Alfaro and Isai Otoniel Mateo-Mejia (“Petitioners”), natives of
Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
dismissal of their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
1
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, apply
the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL
ID Act, see Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010), and deny
the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. Petitioners made several non-trivial omissions and inconsistent
statements about the incidents involving Petitioners and their extended family.
These inconsistencies were not trivial inconsistencies about dates, but an attempt to
enhance their claims. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043–44; Singh v. Gonzales, 403
F.3d 1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2005). The adverse credibility finding is supported by
substantial evidence.
2. The BIA did not err in rejecting Petitioners’ due process claim. The IJ
exercised her authority to “interrogate, examine, and cross-examine” Petitioners. 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1); see Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 688, 693 (9th Cir. 2016)
(“Importantly, a mere showing that the IJ was unfriendly, confrontational, or acted
in an adversarial manner is not enough to” show that a proceeding was
fundamentally unfair.). Petitioners have not pointed to portions of the record to
support their assertion that the proceedings before the IJ were fundamentally unfair
2
and have not shown prejudice from the alleged due process violation. See id.
3. Given the agency’s adverse credibility determination, Petitioners’
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail, as “the remaining evidence in the
record is insufficient to carry [their] burden of establishing eligibility for relief.”
Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017). Their CAT claim, which
rests on the same evidence as their asylum and withholding of removal claims,
likewise fails, as Petitioners have not identified any other evidence that compels
the conclusion that it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by or with
the acquiescence of government officials if they returned to Honduras. See Jiang
v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 740–41 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION DENIED.
3
Nolvia Mejia-Alfaro v. Merrick Garland
Combined Opinion