Aguilar Gomez v. Blanche

── Aguilar Gomez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRENDA AGUILAR GOMEZ, No. 25-3172 Agency No. Petitioner, A087-910-244 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 19, 2026** Phoenix, Arizona Before: GOULD, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Brenda Aguilar-Gomez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her applications for * 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). asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and post-conclusion voluntary departure. “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ decision and also adds its own reasoning, we review the decision of the BIA and those parts of the IJ’s decision upon which it relies.” Duran- Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1027–28 (9th Cir. 2019). We review factual findings underlying the denial of relief, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Zhou v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860, 864 (9th Cir. 2006); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition for review. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal on adverse credibility grounds.1 In assessing an applicant’s credibility, a trier of fact, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances . . . may base a credibility determination on . . . the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, . . . the consistency of [] [oral 1 The BIA did not consider Petitioner’s remaining arguments related to asylum and withholding of removal, because the adverse credibility finding is dispositive. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003); see also INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). Accordingly, these arguments are not before us. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation omitted)). 2 25-3172 or written] statements with other evidence of record, . . . and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Here, the agency based the adverse credibility finding on three “substantial falsehoods”: Aguilar lied to immigration officials about her name, country of nationality, and a parent- child relationship. The agency considered Aguilar’s testimony and determined that her proffered reasons for lying were not reasonable or plausible because she “admitted she had at least two different reasons to lie about her name and country of nationality and because she continued to lie about thes