Bonar Romulus Panggabean v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BONAR ROMULUS PANGGABEAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70933
Agency No. A078-020-333
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Bonar Romulus Panggabean, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JAN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009); Li
v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary
circumstances excused the untimely filing of Panggabean’s asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656–58
(9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Therefore, we deny the petition with respect to
Panggabean’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Panggabean was not
credible because he testified inconsistently regarding the attacks he allegedly
suffered due to his involvement in the Christian youth ministry in college, see
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that petitioner’s
“testimony about the events leading up to his departure” “‘went to heart of [his]
asylum claim’” and “‘related to the basis for his alleged fear of persecution’”), and
he failed to specify the injuries he suffered after such attacks, see Singh-Kaur v.
INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding level of specificity proper
consideration in adverse credibility determination). Moreover, because
Panggabean’s testimony lacked credibility, his failure to present easily available
corroborating evidence was fatal to his application. See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

3
1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[I]f the trier of fact either does not believe the
applicant or does not know what to believe, the applicant’s failure to corroborate
his testimony can be fatal to his asylum application.”). Therefore, we deny the
petition with respect to his withholding of removal claim.
Finally, because Panggabean’s CAT claim was based on the same statements
the agency found not credible and he does not point to any evidence to show it is
more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to Indonesia, we deny the
petition with respect to his CAT claim. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1157 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --