FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUSANA JANNETTE AVALOS- No. 08-74001
RODAS,
Agency No. A094-833-419
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 7, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and KOBAYASHI, District
Judge.***
*
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).
***
The Honorable Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge for
the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
Susana Avalos-Rodas petitions for review of an order by the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision
denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture. We review the immigration judge’s decision
directly because the Board affirmed without an opinion. See Falcon Carriche v.
Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848-49 (9th Cir. 2003).
We deny Avalos-Rodas’s petition because the immigration judge’s adverse
credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence as to multiple statutory
factors under the REAL ID Act, including inconsistency and falsehood. Shrestha
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
Avalos-Rodas has not shown that she is entitled to tolling of the effective date of
the REAL ID Act.
Avalos-Rodas also argues that the immigration judge deprived her of her due
process right to effective assistance of counsel by failing to serve her lawyer with a
copy of the order continuing her hearing. However, she did not raise such an
argument before the Board of Immigration Appeals. This court therefore lacks
jurisdiction to address it. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2