The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-73127•Norma Garcia Estrada; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
17-73127Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 16, 2022
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMA GARCIA ESTRADA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-73127
Agency Nos. A208-124-199
A208-124-200
A208-124-201
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Norma Garcia Estrada seeks review of the denial of her
application for withholding of removal and asylum. Garcia Estrada bases her
claims on gang-related threats of violence she experienced in Mexico, as well as on
FILED
MAR 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 2 --
her status as a survivor of domestic abuse. The Immigration Judge (IJ) and Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied her applications after making an adverse
credibility determination, an adverse credible fear determination, and a finding of
no nexus with regard to her domestic violence claim. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.1
Garcia Estrada argues the BIA abused its discretion by affirming the IJ’s
findings that she did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and that she had
not shown a nexus to a protected social group. But the IJ independently denied
Garcia Estrada’s claims based on an adverse credibility determination, and she has
forfeited any challenge to this determination by failing to raise it in her opening
brief. See Martinez–Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). Because
the adverse credibility determination is independently dispositive, we deny the
petition.
PETITION DENIED.
1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them
here.
2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.