MANUEL SANCHEZ-MENDOZA V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 15-73387 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 13 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANUEL SANCHEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73387 Agency No. A200-245-305 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 7, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges. Petitioner, Manuel Sanchez-Mendoza, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his claim for withholding of removal. “We determine our own jurisdiction de novo.” Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1219, 1221 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “A petitioner’s failure to raise an issue * 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). before the BIA generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving this court of jurisdiction to consider the issue.” Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). For the following reasons, we dismiss the petition. The BIA held that Sanchez-Mendoza made no assertion of clear error in the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility finding and, therefore, the issue was deemed waived. Sanchez-Mendoza argues, however, that the IJ did not make an explicit adverse credibility finding, so he did not need to raise the issue before the BIA. “[T]he law of this circuit does not permit implicit adverse credibility determinations.” Shoafera v. INS, 228 F.3d 1070, 1074 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000). An IJ must identify specific, cogent reasons supporting an adverse credibility determination. Perez-Arceo v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1178, 1186–87 (9th Cir. 2016). Here, the IJ made an explicit adverse credibility finding. In a separate section titled “Analysis and Findings,” the IJ included a subsection titled “Credibility.” In the “Credibility” section, the IJ stated that, “[a]fter considering the totality of the evidence, the Court is no[t] satisfied that [Sanchez-Mendoza] has provided credible testimony.” The IJ pointed to Sanchez-Mendoza’s inconsistent testimony concerning his departures from the United States and multiple reentries. The IJ further noted the inconsistencies in Sanchez-Mendoza’s testimony concerning when and how he was threatened in Mexico. Accordingly, the IJ made an adverse credibility finding and provided specific and cogent reasons supporting the 2 determination. Id. at 1186–87. Because the IJ made an adverse credibility finding, Sanchez-Mendoza was required to challenge the finding before the BIA in order to exhaust his claim for withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Sola, 720 F.3d at 1134. Sanchez-Mendoza failed to do so. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Sola, 720 F.3d at 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissing petition for lack of jurisdiction). PETITION DISMISSED. 3
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.
