FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARYANA JUNIWATY, No. 10-70475
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-403-111
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Saryana Juniwaty, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief 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 the
agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Under the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the discrepancies between
Juniwaty’s declaration, testimony, and her supporting documentation regarding the
chronology of harms she claims to have suffered in Indonesia. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1046-47. Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Juniwaty’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Because Juniwaty’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency
found not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more likely
than not she will be tortured if returned to Indonesia, her CAT claim also fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
Finally, we reject Juniwaty’s contention that the agency violated her due
process rights by not reaching the merits of her claim. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
2 10-70475
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-70475