The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
06-75403•Rudyanto v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General
06-75403Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNov 30, 2009
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NED/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUDYANTO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75403
Agency No. A096-361-809
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Rudyanto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
NED/Research 06-75403 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th
Cir. 2001), and review de novo due process claims, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d
967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
because Rudyanto’s testimony was inconsistent with his declaration concerning the
year of the second attack, and the location where he regained consciousness
following this attack. See Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043 (9th Cir. 2001)
(inconsistencies in the details of events that form the basis for the asylum claim go
to the heart of the claim and support an adverse credibility finding).
We reject Rudyanto’s due process contention that he was not afforded with a
competent interpreter at the merits hearing because he has failed to show “a better
translation would have made a difference in the outcome of the hearing.” Kotasz v.
INS, 31 F.3d 847, 850 n.2 (9th Cir. 1994).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.