Sandra Senaida Ramos Lopez; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDRA SENAIDA RAMOS LOPEZ; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-133
Agency Nos.
A208-418-155
A208-418-156
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Sandra Senaida Ramos Lopez and her minor son, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their application for asylum and Ramos Lopez’s applications for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
MAY 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-133
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on an inconsistency regarding the number of times and
when she was extorted in-person and omissions in Ramos-Lopez’s declarations
regarding extortion phone calls and the robbery of her mother. See id. at 1048
(adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances);
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner’s
omissions supported adverse credibility determination where they did not
constitute “a mere lack of detail” but “went to the core of his alleged fear”).
Ramos Lopez’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Because petitioners do not challenge
the agency’s finding that Ramos-Lopez did not present sufficient corroborative
evidence that would otherwise establish eligibility for relief, we do not address
it. Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum claim and
Ramos Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We need not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding the
merits of their asylum and withholding of removal claims because the BIA did

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-133
not deny relief on these grounds. 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)).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because, even if credible, Ramos Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not
she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government
if returned to Guatemala. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033
(9th Cir. 2014) (“torture must be ‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official
capacity’” (internal citation omitted)).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --