FILED
NOV 22 2010
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENDY EFFENDY, No. 08-70154
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-629-854
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.
Wendy Effendy, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Effendy established changed
or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the delay in filing his asylum application
beyond the one-year deadline. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v.
Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, we
deny the petition as to Effendy’s asylum claim.
Based on the different names, birth dates, and places of birth that Effendy
presented in his Indonesian passports and in his child’s birth certificate, substantial
evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding adverse credibility
finding where inconsistencies went to key elements of the asylum claim, including
identity); Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000) (“At the very least, the
record does not compel the opposite conclusion.”). Accordingly, in the absence of
credible testimony, Effendy’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah, 348
F.3d at 1156.
2 08-70154
Effendy fails to raise any substantive challenge to the denial of his CAT
claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues
not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70154