Cristian Serban v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISTIAN SERBAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72800
Agency No. A094-772-229
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Cristian Serban, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
DEC 06 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the
standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID
Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo
claims of due process violations. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.
2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Serban’s credible fear interview, his asylum
application statement, and his testimony regarding the 1996 incident in which
Serban was accused of hitting a man with a car. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048
(adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s
“totality of the circumstances” standard). In the absence of credible testimony,
Serban’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We reject Serban’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by
cross-examining him. See Antonio-Cruz v. INS, 147 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir.
1998). We lack jurisdiction to consider Serban’s contention that the IJ violated his
due process rights by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to obtain
corroborating evidence, because he failed to exhaust this contention before the
BIA. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 678.
11-72800 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, we do not reach the question of whether the IJ erred in determining
that Serban had been convicted of a particularly serious crime. See Navas v. INS,
217 F.3d 646, 658 n.16 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]his court cannot affirm the BIA on a
ground upon which it did not rely.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
11-72800 3

-- 3 of 3 --