Josselyn Yareli Maderos-Pinto v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSSELYN YARELI MADEROS-PINTO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72060
Agency No. A206-631-203
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Josselyn Yareli Maderos-Pinto, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
* 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).
FILED
JAN 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72060
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947
F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Because Maderos-Pinto does not challenge the agency’s adverse credibility
determination, this issue is waived. 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). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case,
Maderos-Pinto’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Maderos-Pinto’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found
not credible, and Maderos-Pinto does not point to any other evidence in the record
that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured in
Guatemala. See id. at 1157.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Maderos-Pinto’s remaining
contentions regarding her eligibility for relief. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder,
657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we
consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)); Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.
2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72060
reach).
We do not consider the materials Maderos-Pinto references in her opening
brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,
963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative
record).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --