Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A088-110-307.
For GERRY NATA WIDJAJA, Petitioner: Ricardo Vidal, Attorney, Law Offices of Ricardo Vidal, P.A., San Diego, CA.
For ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent: Ali Manuchehry, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC; Chief Counsel ICE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA; Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Gerry Nata Widjaja, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (" CAT" ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel reversal of the agency's adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies within his testimony regarding if and/or when he told his parents he was afraid of the Muslim leader, and based on the evasive nature of his testimony regarding who took care of him after his parents disappeared. See id. at 1045-47 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under totality of circumstances); Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1256-57 (9th Cir. 2003) (adverse credibility finding based on evasive testimony). In the absence of credible testimony, Widjaja's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Widjaja's CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Indonesia, his CAT claim also fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.