Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Jonathan M. Kaufman, Law Offices of Alan M. Kaufman, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Timothy P. McIlmail, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./ Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KOZINSKI, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rudy Adolfo Dominguez-Pac, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") summarily affirming an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review credibility findings for substantial evidence. See Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 658 (9th Cir.2003).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's decision that Dominguez-Pac failed to establish eligibility for asylum because his testimony was vague, inconsistent, and implausible. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). The record does not compel a contrary finding. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.