Gerry Nata Widjaja 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GERRY NATA WIDJAJA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70671
Agency No. A088-110-307
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Gerry Nata Widjaja, a native and citizen of Indonesia, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-70671 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel reversal of the agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on inconsistencies within his testimony regarding if and/or
when he told his parents he was afraid of the Muslim leader, and based on the
evasive nature of his testimony regarding who took care of him after his parents
disappeared. See id. at 1045-47 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under
totality of circumstances); Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1256–57 (9th Cir.2003)
(adverse credibility finding based on evasive testimony). In the absence of
credible testimony, Widjaja’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Widjaja’s CAT claim is based on the same 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 Indonesia, his CAT claim also fails. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --