NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA Z. VASQUEZ DE QUINTERO, No. 20-70846
AKA Maria Rodriguez de Enriquez,
Agency No. A039-099-987
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Rosa Z. Vasquez De Quintero, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process
violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535
(9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Vasquez De Quintero’s contention that the BIA violated her right to due
process by declining to remand to the IJ for a new adverse credibility
determination fails. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.
2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a
violation of rights and prejudice.”); see also Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137
(9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (“in assessing an adverse credibility finding under the
[REAL ID] Act, we must look to the ‘totality of the circumstances[ ] and all
relevant factors.’ . . . . There is no bright-line rule under which some number of
inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility
determination” (internal citation omitted)). In her opening brief, Vasquez De
Quintero does not raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the remaining
factors relied upon in the BIA’s adverse credibility determination, which are
dispositive. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Vasquez De Quintero does not raise, and has therefore also waived, any
challenge to the BIA’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT, and the BIA’s
conclusions as to the need for competency proceedings. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706
2 20-70846
F.3d at 1079-80.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-70846