Toto Djong 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TOTO DJONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73470
Agency No. A096-360-180
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Toto Djong, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
FEB 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-73470 2
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact,
including adverse credibility determinations. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038,
1042 (9th Cir. 2001). We review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistency between Djong’s testimony and identification card
regarding whether he was ever Buddhist, his inability to recall when he converted
to Christianity, and his failure to provide evidence corroborating that he is a
practicing Christian. See Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 723-24 (9th Cir. 1997);
see also Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1090-92 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of
credible testimony, Djong’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Djong did not
establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or
acquiescence of the Indonesian government. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, his CAT claim fails.
Finally, we reject Djong’s assertion that the IJ violated his due process rights
by admitting evidence concerning the conduct of the organization that prepared his

-- 2 of 3 --

09-73470 3
asylum application. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 972 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --