Jefri Paulus 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JEFRI PAULUS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71296
Agency No. A095-630-126
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.
Jefri Paulus, 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
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
FILED
JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-71296 2
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings.
Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based
on the omission from his asylum application of the kidnapings of Paulus and his
wife. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (omitted
incidents of arrest and mistreatment supported adverse credibility finding).
Further, the record does not compel acceptance of the explanation that Paulus
prepared his application pro se, without any help. See id. at 974. In addition, to
the extent Paulus otherwise contends he was not afforded an opportunity to explain
omissions in his application, we lack jurisdiction to review Paulus’s contention
because he did not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3rd 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not presented below). Accordingly, in
the absence of credible testimony, Paulus’s withholding of removal claim fails.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Paulus’s CAT claim is based on the same statements the agency found not
credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the

-- 2 of 3 --

09-71296 3
conclusion it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Indonesia.
See id. at 1156-57. Accordingly, Paulus’s CAT claim fails.
Finally, in light of our conclusions regarding the agency’s adverse
credibility finding, we reject Paulus’s contention that we cannot meaningfully
review this case.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --