NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUVIGES ARACELI PERDOMO-DE No. 17-70684
RECINOS,
Agency No. A202-149-014
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Eduviges Araceli Perdomo-De Recinos, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying
the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID
Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Perdomo-De Recinos’ testimony and declaration
as to the circumstances of her husband’s beating by the gang, and inconsistencies
within her testimony as to the timing of the gang’s increased monthly extortion
demand. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the
totality of the circumstances”). Perdomo-De Recinos’ explanations do not compel
a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Perdomo-De
Recinos did not present documentary evidence that would otherwise establish her
eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014)
(applicant’s documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate his testimony).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Perdomo-De Recinos’ contentions regarding
translation errors because she did not raise them below. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony Perdomo-De
2 17-70684
Recinos’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We do not reach Perdomo-De Recinos’ merits-based contentions regarding
her eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal because the BIA did not
deny relief on those grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820,
829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA).
Because Perdomo-De Recinos does not contest the BIA’s determination that
she failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, this issue is forfeited. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 17-70684
Eduviges Perdomo-De Recinos v. Merrick Garland
Combined Opinion