Napoleon Villacorte Galang; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NAPOLEON VILLACORTE GALANG;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr. Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74133
Agency Nos. A077-149-639
A079-145-348
A098-931-022
A098-931-023
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.
Napoleon Villacorte Galang and his family, natives and citizens of the
Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
dismissal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74133 2
for substantial evidence findings of fact, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039
(9th Cir. 2010) and de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210
F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Galang admitted that he entered into a fraudulent marriage in order to obtain
immigration benefits. In light of this fraud, and Galang’s failure to corroborate his
claim that he was a government informant in the United States, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d
at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable “[i]n the totality of
circumstances”); see also Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“[t]he highly deferential standard of review compels us to let stand the BIA’s
determination that petitioner’s corroboration was insufficient.”). Finally, we reject
Galang’s contention that the IJ’s actions during the merits hearing deprived him of
a full and fair hearing. Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error and prejudice to prevail in due process claim). Accordingly Galang’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to review Galang’s contentions regarding the denial of
his asylum claim because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --