Michael Fnu v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

06-74751Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 22, 2010

Full text

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).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL FNU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74751
Agency No. A096-361-111
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Michael FNU, 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 withholding of removal. We have
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 06-74751 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence adverse
credibility determinations, and reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary
conclusion. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
The agency found petitioner not credible because he omitted from his
original asylum application three incidents which allegedly precipitated his flight
from Indonesia. Petitioner asserted that in these incidents, he was detained,
threatened, and interrogated, and on two occasions, that he was brutally beaten to
the point of unconsciousness. Substantial evidence supports this adverse
credibility determination. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th
Cir. 2003) (petitioner’s omission of a “dramatic, pivotal” event from asylum
application supported agency’s adverse credibility determination). In the absence
of credible testimony, petitioner’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah
v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.