FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ENRIQUE CARDONA RIVAS, No. 08-71806
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-310-026
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Enrique Cardona Rivas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se 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 findings of fact, including adverse credibility
determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies both within Cardona Rivas’ testimony, and between
his testimony and documentary evidence concerning whether or not he deserted the
army, whether or not he participated in the harm of others during his military
service, and when his cousin was harmed by guerillas. See id. at 1043. Contrary to
Cardona Rivas’ assertion, these inconsistencies are material to his claim. See id.
(inconsistencies relating to “the events leading up to [petitioner’s] departure” were
material); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i) (a person who “ordered, incited,
assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution” of any person on account of
one of the five grounds may not be granted asylum). In the absence of credible
testimony, Cardona Rivas’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71806