Marenta Tanze Ayimale v. Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Marenta Tanze Ayimale,
Petitioner,
v.
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-476
Agency No. A213-190-570
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 27, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: BOGGS,*** M. SMITH, and OWENS, Circuit Judges
Marenta Tanze Ayimale, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion
for reconsideration of the BIA’s dismissal of her appeal of the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
* 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).
*** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-476
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Ayala
v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). As the
parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
Nowhere in her brief does Ayimale state how the BIA abused its
discretion in denying her motion for reconsideration; she thereby waived this
issue. See Cui v. Garland, 13 F.4th 991, 999 n.6 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that a
petitioner waived an issue by failing to make substantive arguments in her
brief). While she argues that the IJ and BIA erroneously concluded that she was
not credible in the underlying decisions denying relief, Ayimale does not
contend that the BIA’s denial of the motion for reconsideration was “arbitrary,
irrational, or contrary to law.” Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir.
2020) (citation omitted).
Even if this issue were not waived, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
denying Ayimale’s motion. In her motion for reconsideration, she alleged that
the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s denial because the agency failed to consider
the totality of the circumstances when evaluating her credibility. However, the
BIA properly considered this argument and rejected it, noting that Ayimale
failed to show she could overcome the adverse credibility finding even with
additional evidence and the BIA had already considered and declined to credit
her explanation for the discrepancies in her testimony. Accordingly, she failed

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-476
to show an “error[] of fact or law in the prior Board decision,” 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(b)(1), and we find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s order denying
Ayimale’s motion.
To the extent that Ayimale seeks review of the underlying BIA decision
affirming the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
CAT protection, we lack jurisdiction because Ayimale’s petition for review is
not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.
2003) (citation omitted). The time limit is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Id.
(citation omitted).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --