Vitali Ciolac v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 14 2013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
VITALI CIOLAC, No. 10-70771
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-118-921
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Vitali Ciolac, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions pro se 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
governing adverse credibility determination created by the REAL ID Act.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Ciolac’s testimony at his merits hearing,
statements he made at his asylum interview, and medical reports. See id. at 1048(adverse credibility finding reasonable under totality of circumstances). The
agency reasonably rejected Ciolac’s explanations for the inconsistencies. See
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of
credible testimony, Ciolac’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Ciolac’s CAT claim is based on the same statements found not
credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely
than not that he would be tortured if returned to Moldova, his CAT claim also fails.
See id. at 1156-57. We reject Ciolac’s contention that the BIA’s review of his
CAT claim was insufficient. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir.
2004) (agency “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092,
2 10-70771
1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner did not overcome presumption that the BIA
reviewed record).
In light of our determination that substantial evidence supports the agency’s
adverse credibility finding, we do not address the agency’s alternative merits
findings, nor its determination that Ciolac failed to provide sufficient
corroboration. Ciolac’s contention that the BIA erred in denying voluntary
departure is without merit because the record reflects that Ciolac did not request
voluntary departure before the IJ. Ciolac’s contentions that the BIA failed to
review his case and that the agency made “cookie-cutter” credibility findings are
not supported. Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Ciolac’s contentions that he
was not allowed to develop the facts of his case fully and that he was not provided
an opportunity to explain inconsistencies, because he failed to raise these
contentions before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-70771