NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 13 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL SANCHEZ-MENDOZA, No. 15-73387
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-245-305
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, Manuel Sanchez-Mendoza, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his claim for withholding of removal.
“We determine our own jurisdiction de novo.” Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d
1219, 1221 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “A petitioner’s failure to raise an issue
*
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).
before the BIA generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving this court of
jurisdiction to consider the issue.” Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir.
2013) (per curiam). For the following reasons, we dismiss the petition.
The BIA held that Sanchez-Mendoza made no assertion of clear error in the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility finding and, therefore, the issue was
deemed waived. Sanchez-Mendoza argues, however, that the IJ did not make an
explicit adverse credibility finding, so he did not need to raise the issue before the
BIA. “[T]he law of this circuit does not permit implicit adverse credibility
determinations.” Shoafera v. INS, 228 F.3d 1070, 1074 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000). An IJ
must identify specific, cogent reasons supporting an adverse credibility
determination. Perez-Arceo v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1178, 1186–87 (9th Cir. 2016).
Here, the IJ made an explicit adverse credibility finding. In a separate section
titled “Analysis and Findings,” the IJ included a subsection titled “Credibility.” In
the “Credibility” section, the IJ stated that, “[a]fter considering the totality of the
evidence, the Court is no[t] satisfied that [Sanchez-Mendoza] has provided credible
testimony.” The IJ pointed to Sanchez-Mendoza’s inconsistent testimony
concerning his departures from the United States and multiple reentries. The IJ
further noted the inconsistencies in Sanchez-Mendoza’s testimony concerning when
and how he was threatened in Mexico. Accordingly, the IJ made an adverse
credibility finding and provided specific and cogent reasons supporting the
2
determination. Id. at 1186–87. Because the IJ made an adverse credibility finding,
Sanchez-Mendoza was required to challenge the finding before the BIA in order to
exhaust his claim for withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Sola, 720 F.3d
at 1134. Sanchez-Mendoza failed to do so. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review
the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Sola, 720 F.3d at 1135 (9th Cir. 2013)
(dismissing petition for lack of jurisdiction).
PETITION DISMISSED.
3