FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFRI TRIGNO, No. 07-74784
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-630-082
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jefri Trigno, 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Tekle
v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for
review.
In his opening brief, Trigno fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive
determination that his asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues that are not addressed in the
argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies regarding the only incident of physical harm that Trigno
allegedly suffered in Indonesia. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th
Cir. 2005) (concluding the discrepancies about number of persecutors and date of
incident were significant because they involved one of the few interactions
between the petitioner and her persecutors); Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271,
1275 (9th Cir. 2007) (adverse credibility finding supported where hearing revealed
numerous instances in which petitioner attempted to explain inconsistencies and IJ
found explanations insufficient). Accordingly, Trigno’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
Because Trigno’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not
credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not he
2 07-74784
would 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.
3 07-74784