Eduard Sihombing; Martha Sitompul; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EDUARD SIHOMBING; MARTHA
SITOMPUL; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72958
Agency Nos. A095-629-801
A094-833-481
A094-833-482
A094-833-483
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Eduard Sihombing, Martha Sitompul, and their children, natives and citizens
of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-72958 2
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Singh v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s dispositive
determination that Eduard Sihombing’s asylum claim was time-barred.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because of inconsistencies regarding the location of the church bombing, the
severity of injuries suffered by those harmed in the bombing, and Sihombing’s
whereabouts on the purported date of the bombing, and these inconsistencies go to
the heart of petitioners’ claims. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000)
(sustaining adverse credibility determination based in part on inconsistencies
between testimony and documentary evidence concerning date of the alleged
incident of persecution); Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding
“geographic discrepancies which went to the heart” of applicant’s claim).
Substantial evidence also supports the adverse credibility determination based on
the inconsistency regarding the presence of petitioners’ children during the assault
at their home. Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-43 (9th Cir. 2007)
(inconsistencies and lack of details regarding the event that spurred the persecutors
to threaten petitioner go to the heart of the claim and are not trivial). The agency

-- 2 of 3 --

08-72958 3
reasonably rejected petitioners’ explanations for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v.
Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible
testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah
v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be
not credible, and they point to no other evidence the agency should have
considered, substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --