FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUFINO DOMINGUEZ-SANCHEZ, No. 08-70986
a.k.a., Jose Santos Lozano-Montoya,
Agency No. A073-129-877
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Rufino Dominguez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
for substantial evidence, Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008),
and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Dominguez-Sanchez admitted to lying about his identity for purposes of
seeking asylum, obtaining a work permit, and in other interactions with
government officials. See id. (affirming adverse credibility determination on the
basis of petitioner’s “initial filing of a fraudulent asylum application, combined
with his repetition of his fabricated narrative in his asylum interview and in his
first hearing before the IJ”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
adverse credibility determination based upon the omission of the 1988 detention by
guerillas from Dominguez-Sanchez’s original asylum application, see Li v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-64 (9th Cir. 2004), and his failure to provide
reasonable explanations for the omission, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271,
1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Dominguez-Sanchez’s
claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-70986