Mircea Irianu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MIRCEA IRIANU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74978
Agency No. A073-573-170
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mircea Irianu, 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,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
FEB 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74978 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we
review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105,
1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the significant omission from Irianu’s supplemental declaration that he
was beaten during weekly interrogations by the police, see Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d
1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010), and based on the discrepancies between Irianu’s
testimony and his statements to the asylum officer regarding the reason for the
1994 demonstration and arrest, which go to the heart of his claim, see Li v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of credible
testimony, Irianu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348
F.3d at 1156.
Because Irianu’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not
credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he
will be tortured if returned to Romania, his CAT claim also fails. Id. at 1156-57.
Irianu’s contention that the BIA and IJ failed to adequately address his CAT claim
is belied by the record.

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74978 3
Finally, Irianu’s due process contention fails because the IJ did not err in
admitting the asylum officer’s notes and assessment to refer because they
contained sufficient indicia of reliability. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to establish a due process
violation); cf. Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1089-90 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --