Norma Yamilett Orantes- Barrera v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, Senior United States Circuit**
Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMA YAMILETT ORANTES-
BARRERA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70322
Agency No. A097-762-530
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 13, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: GILMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.**
Norma Yamillett Orantes-Barrera, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her applications for asylum,
FILED
JUL 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial
evidence, see Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010), we deny
the petition for review.
1. Contrary to Orantes-Barrera’s contentions, the IJ made an explicit adverse
credibility finding. See de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391, 394 (9th Cir. 1997)
(stating that although an adverse credibility finding does not require the recitation
of unique or particular words, it must be explicit). Here, the IJ stated that he
believed Orantes-Barrera with regard to the fact that there are gangs prevalent in El
Salvador but “[could ]not find . . . credible” “the other aspects where she attempts
to elevate or lift her claim to a protected basis, and on account of a protected
ground.”
2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1039. The IJ based the adverse credibility finding in part on
Orantes-Barrera’s demeanor. The IJ noted Orantes-Barrera’s “long pauses
between many salient pieces of testimony are indicia of lack of candor to this
court.” The IJ distinguished Orantes-Barrera’s difficulties due to her emotions
from her demeanor in being asked difficult questions. See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d
1050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the demeanor finding was insufficient

-- 2 of 3 --

3
where the IJ failed to provide specific examples of how petitioner’s demeanor
supported the adverse credibility determination). Because the record does not
compel the conclusion that Orantes-Barrera’s testimony was credible, Orantes-
Barrera has not established eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief
under the CAT. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
Further, Orantes-Barrera failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. See
Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489 (9th Cir. 1997) (a petitioner cannot establish a
nexus to a protected ground by inference unless the inference is clear).
3. Orantes-Barrera argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s holding that
she was ineligible to apply for adjustment of status. We disagree. Orantes-Barrera
did not have an immediately available visa. The visa available in 1998 was
properly purged. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(g) (2003). Because Orantes-Barrera did not
have an immediately available visa, she did not have a liberty interest in
discretionary relief from removal. See Tovar-Landin v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1164,
1167 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --