Elvis Jhune Querol Tubon v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELVIS JHUNE QUEROL TUBON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71181
Agency No. A075-118-892
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Elvis Jhune Querol Tubon, a native and citizen of the Philippines, 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
FILED
JAN 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

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 deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omission of Tubon’s political activities from his asylum application
and written statement. See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010)
(significant omissions from asylum applications can be substantial evidence in
support of an adverse credibility determination). Tubon’s explanations for the
omission do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245
(9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Tubon’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008) (denying CAT relief
because petitioner failed to demonstrate that “more likely than not, she will be
tortured at the instigation of, or with the acquiescence of the Philippine
government”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-71181 2

-- 2 of 2 --