FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELEUTERIO JORGE VICENTE-XILOJ, No. 08-72515
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-720-734
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Eleuterio Jorge Vicente-Xiloj, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Kin
v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based upon both internal inconsistencies within Vicente-Xiloj’s testimony and on
an inconsistency between his testimony and the death certificate he submitted
regarding the circumstances of his friend’s death, see Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d
735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (inconsistencies between testimony and
documentary evidence regarding nature of attack and injuries suffered went to the
heart of the claim and supported an adverse credibility finding), and the agency
reasonably rejected Vicente-Xiloj’s explanations for these discrepancies, see
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, in the
absence of credible testimony, Vicente-Xiloj’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Vicente-Xiloj 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.
2 08-72515