Joko Wuryanto 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOKO WURYANTO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70932
Agency No. A079-470-743
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Joko Wuryanto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, 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 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-70932 2
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations. See
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the substantial discrepancies between Wuryanto’s testimony and asylum
application regarding what occurred during the 1996 and 2000 encounters he
described. See id. at 1043; Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007).
Wuryanto’s contentions that he was not afforded an opportunity to explain the
discrepancies and that the BIA failed to provide its rationale for affirming the IJ’s
adverse credibility determination are belied by the record. In the absence of
credible testimony, Wuryanto’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Wuryanto’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be
not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more
likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Indonesia, his CAT claim fails.
See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --