Silaghi v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN GHEORGHE SILAGHI, No. 07-74378
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-650-501
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 23, 2010 **
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Benjamin Gheorghe Silaghi, a native and citizen of Romania, 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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we dismiss
in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Silaghi’s contentions regarding the IJ’s
determination that his asylum application was time-barred because he did not
exhaust the issue before the BIA. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th
Cir. 2009) (en banc) (petitioner did not exhaust claim where he filed brief to the
BIA and the brief did not raise the issue). Silaghi also failed to exhaust any
challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See id.Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Silaghi testified he knew his asylum application contained false statements
regarding alleged incidents of persecution, yet he failed to submit an amended
application or disclose the false information until confronted on cross-examination,
see Martinez v. Holder, 557 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir. 2009), and his explanation
for making the false statements does not compel a contrary conclusion, see Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony,
Silaghi’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 07-74378