VACLAV TRNKA, AKA Vaclav Trnkabrnka v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VACLAV TRNKA, AKA Vaclav
Trnkabrnka,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73397
Agency No. A099-762-678
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Vaclav Trnka, a native and citizen of the Czech Republic, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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).
FILED
MAR 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-73397
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 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,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we review de novo due process challenges, Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Although he makes general arguments in support of his asylum claim, Trnka
does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum
application was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). Thus, we
deny the petition as to Trnka’s asylum claim.
As to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies regarding his alleged
kidnapping, the harm to his mother, and not timely-filing his asylum application.
See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under
the totality of circumstances). Trnka’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence
of credible testimony, Trnka’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Garcia v.
Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-73397
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Trnka’s CAT
claim because it is based on the same testimony found not credible, and he does
not point to any other evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than
not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
government of the Czech Republic. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
Finally, we reject Trnka’s contention that inadequate interpretation deprived
him of a fundamentally fair hearing. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047
(9th Cir. 2009) (“To establish a due process violation, a petitioner must show that
defects in translation prejudiced the outcome of the hearing.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --