FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTURO MENDOZA-CARRILLO, No. 05-75021
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-166-054
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 11, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Mendoza-Carillo petitions for review of the order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of the denial of his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Mendoza-Carillo’s claims for relief
because he found Mendoza-Carillo’s testimony both internally inconsistent and
inconsistent with the documents in evidence. We review credibility findings for
substantial evidence. Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2004).
The adverse credibility determination must be upheld “unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the contrary.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(4)(B)). The evidence here does not compel a contrary result; rather it
substantially supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The school
certificate and Mendoza-Carillo’s own statements materially contradict each other
and go to the heart of his claim for asylum. The same lack of credibility dooms his
claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against
Torture. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
Mendoza-Carillo also challenges the IJ’s refusal to consider testimony from
three proposed witnesses. We review the admission or rejection of evidence for an
abuse of discretion. Wicker v. Or. ex rel. Bureau of Labor, 543 F.3d 1168, 1173
(9th Cir. 2008). Even if the IJ abused his discretion by refusing to hear Mendoza-
Carillo’s witnesses, there was no prejudice. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles,
533 F.3d 1010, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008). None of the witnesses could clarify the
contradictions in Mendoza-Carillo’s testimony.
2
Accordingly, Mendoza-Carillo’s Petition for Review is DENIED.
3