Enkhbold Dorj v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ENKHBOLD DORJ; OYUNBAYAR No. 16-71131
MOONON; BATTUYA ENKHBOLD,
Agency Nos. A089-967-936
Petitioners, A089-967-937
A089-967-938
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
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 Enkhbold Dorj, along with his wife and child, Oyunbayar Moonon
and Battuya Enkhbold, natives and citizens of Mongolia, filed a timely petition for
review of a final decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 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).
their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). “We
review ‘denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial
evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Huang v. Holder, 744
F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014)). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny
the petition.
The IJ found several inconsistencies with Dorj’s testimony. First, Dorj
testified that he was arrested and beaten for his participation in a political rally that
had between 2,000 and 3,000 participants. He later testified that the rally only had
400-500 participants. The IJ asked whether Dorj could provide newspaper articles
to corroborate his testimony about the size of the rally, but Dorj did not submit any
such articles. Second, Dorj testified that he was released from police custody after
his 2006 arrest when his friend paid a bribe to police. Dorj’s wife testified that she
paid the bribe with money she received from her father. Third, Dorj testified that his
wife picked him up from the police station after his 2008 arrest. However, his wife
testified that her cousin picked him up from the station. Fourth, different from Dorj’s
testimony, Moonon failed to mention that Dorj was summoned to the police station
in May 2006 or that the police demanded more money from Dorj after his release in
2
2008.
Because substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding, the BIA
did not clearly err when it affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of
removal. Dorj did not brief the denial of CAT relief separately from his challenge to
the adverse credibility finding, and we therefore decline to reach this issue as
forfeited. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); see also Delgado-Hernandez v. Holder, 697
F.3d 1125, 1126 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that petitioner’s failure to brief denial
of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT protection claims resulted in waiver).
PETITION DENIED.
3