MARITZA MARQUEZ-VILLATORO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-70103 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 28 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARITZA MARQUEZ-VILLATORO, a.k.a. Maritza Villatoro Ruiz, No. 11-70103 Agency No. A097-315-376 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 19, 2012 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Maritza Marquez-Villatoro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying her application for asylum, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Marquez-Villatoro established extraordinary circumstances to excuse her untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). We lack jurisdiction to review Marquez-Villatoro s contention related to equitable tolling of the one-year filing requirement, because she failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, her asylum claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency s adverse credibility determination based on multiple inconsistencies within Marquez-Villatoro s testimony, and between her testimony, application and written statement, regarding significant aspects of her claim. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act s totality of the circumstances standard). Marquez-Villatoro s explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th 2 11-70103 Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Marquez-Villatoro s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Marquez-Villatoro s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same statements found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See id. at 1156-57. Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Marquez-Villatoro s contentions related to the government s burden of proving deportability, her fear of future harm from gangs and police, and her cancellation of removal claim because she failed to raise them to the agency. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 678. We deny as moot Marquez-Villatoro s motion to reconsider her request for a stay of removal. See 9th Cir. R. 27-10. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 11-70103
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
