Ricky Richardo Lumentut, a.k.a. Ricky Richardo Lulmentut 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICKY RICHARDO LUMENTUT, a.k.a.
Ricky Richardo Lulmentut,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74777
Agency No. A078-020-219
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ricky Richardo Lumentut, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
FILED
APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74777 2
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Lumentut demonstrated
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4),(5).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because the discrepancies between Lumentut’s testimony and his written statement
regarding where, how, and the number of times he was attacked go to the heart of
his claim of persecution. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). In
the absence of credible testimony, Lumentut’s withholding of removal claim fails.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Lumentut’s does not raise any arguments in his opening brief regarding the
agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --