Opinion
The 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)
Alien, a citizen of Sri Lanka, appealed immigration judge's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed appeal, and alien petitioned for review. The Court of Appeals held that substantial inconsistencies in alien's testimony supported adverse credibility finding and, thus, denial of alien's applications for asylum and for withholding of deportation
Petition for review denied.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, 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 may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Henarathhetti Karunaratna, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of the final decision of the Board of
Page 924.
Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Pursuant to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), the transitional rules apply, see Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), and we therefore have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), as amended by IIRIRA § 309(c), see Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1195 n. 4 (9th Cir.2000). We review for substantial evidence the BIA's adverse credibility determination, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.
Karunaratna contends that substantial evidence does not support the BIA's adverse credibility finding. We disagree.
An adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence where the BIA provides specific, cogent reasons for its adverse credibility finding that are substantial and bear a legitimate nexus to the petitioner's fear of persecution. See Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir.1998). The BIA relied on substantial inconsistencies in Karunaratna's testimony regarding events purportedly causing his fear of persecution: threatening letters, an arrest, and the murder of his brother. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the denial of his application for asylum, see Lata, 204 F.3d at 1245-46, and denial of his application for withholding of deportation, see Aruta v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1396 (9th Cir.1996) (higher standard for withholding of deportation cannot be satisfied by petitioner who fails to demonstrate eligibility for asylum).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.