John Wesly Celestin 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOHN WESLY CELESTIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73812
Agency No. A098-510-452
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2012**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner John Celestin, a native and citizen of Haiti, seeks review of an
order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing Celestin’s
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
DEC 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

Because the parties are familiar with the facts underlying this appeal, we1
do not recount the facts here.
2
(“CAT”). Where the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s order under Matter of
Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), and expresses no disagreement
with the IJ’s decision, this court reviews the IJ’s order as if it were the BIA’s.
Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). This court
reviews legal questions de novo and factual findings under the “substantial
evidence standard, treating them as ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662
F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). This court
reviews a denial of asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under CAT for
substantial evidence. Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2009).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition for
review.1
Celestin claims that the IJ failed to make an adverse credibility finding and
that his testimony should therefore be credited as true. This claim fails because
the IJ explicitly found that Celestin lacked credibility because his testimony was
far less specific than his written declaration and because he was unable to describe
the police strategies that rebels had asked him about. The IJ further found that

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Celestin needed to provide corroborating evidence to bolster his testimony. These
reasons constitute substantial evidence in support of the IJ’s findings. See Sidhu v.
I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that this court will uphold an
IJ’s adverse credibility finding where the IJ had reason to question the alien’s
credibility and the alien failed to produce easily available corroborating evidence);
Singh-Kaur v. I.N.S., 183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999) (upholding the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding based in part of lack of specificity).
Because the BIA properly denied Celestin’s asylum and withholding of
removal petitions on the basis of adverse credibility, we decline to address the
merits of those claims. See I.N.S. v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a
general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
Celestin’s claim under CAT was based entirely upon the same evidence he
submitted in support of his claim for asylum. Because substantial evidence
supported a denial of asylum based on adverse credibility, it likewise supports a
denial of protection under CAT. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.
2003).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
We deem any of Celestin’s remaining claims waived because he failed to
address them in the argument section of his brief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d
1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --