Carlos Chaclan-Perez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CARLOS CHACLAN-PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74005
Agency No. A095-689-760
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Chaclan-Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JUN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74005 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence an adverse credibility determination, Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1088
(9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Chaclan-Perez did not challenge the agency’s
dispositive determination that his asylum claim is time-barred. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported
by argument are deemed abandoned).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. Chaclan-Perez’s testimony was inconsistent with his asylum
application, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and vague and
lacking in detail concerning his student status during the years he was allegedly
attacked and threatened because of his participation in the university student
organization, see Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding
level of specificity proper consideration in adverse credibility determination). In
addition, Chaclan-Perez failed to provide evidence of his 1998 university
enrollment after the IJ granted a continuance for that purpose. See Sidhu, 220 F.3d
at 1090 (“[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 . . . application.”). In the absence of credible testimony, Chaclan-Perez’s

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74005 3
withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Because Chaclan-Perez’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency
found not credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely
than not he would be tortured if returned to Guatemala, his CAT claim fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --