Rubia Lastenia Menjivar- Ramirez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBIA LASTENIA MENJIVAR-
RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-277
Agency No.
A208-382-555
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 13, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: WALLACH,*** CHRISTEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rubia Lastenia Menjivar-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing
* 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 Evan J. Wallach, United States Senior Circuit Judge
for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-277
her appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying her applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review
the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(ii);
Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2003). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the facts and recite them only as necessary. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of Menjivar-Ramirez’s
applications based on an adverse credibility finding. See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d
1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010) (reviewing adverse credibility finding for substantial
evidence). The IJ identified six inconsistencies in Menjivar-Ramirez’s testimony
and gave her “an opportunity to explain each inconsistency.” Barseghyan v.
Garland, 39 F.4th 1138, 1143 (9th Cir. 2022). Menjivar-Ramirez did not know or
remember critical details and was unable to fully account for any of the
inconsistencies. The IJ had also given Menjivar-Ramirez and her counsel the
opportunity to make any needed corrections to her application and supporting
documentation before she testified. The totality of the circumstances and all
relevant factors therefore support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See
Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --