FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHAN DRAJAT, No. 11-71418
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-361-909
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2013 **
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Johan Drajat, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008), and we
review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105,
1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies within Drajat’s testimony and between his testimony and
declaration regarding his report to the police of the attempted poisoning, including
whether any report was made at all. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071
(9th Cir. 2007) (discrepancies between testimony and declaration supported the
adverse credibility determination); Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th
Cir. 2007) (inconsistencies regarding details of incident that went to the heart of
the claim deprived the claim of “the ring of truth.”). In the absence of credible
testimony, Drajat’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Drajat’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency
found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely
than not he will be tortured if returned to Indonesia, his CAT claim also fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
2 11-71418
Finally, the BIA did not err in concluding that the IJ’s use of a transcript of
the earlier hearings did not violate Drajat’s due process rights. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to
establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-71418