Case ID: f-appx_84/html/0835-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marco Antonio Aroche NAVARIJO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73202.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
    Marco Antonio Aroehe Navarijo, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Phoenix, AZ, Regina Byrd, Attorney, Ernesto H, Molina, Jr., DOJ — .S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marco Antonio Aroehe Navarijo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence. Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because Aroehe Navarijo requested asylum on inconsistent grounds in his original asylum application, asylum interview, amended asylum application, and hearing testimony, and the discrepancies go to the heart of his asylum claim. See Valderrama v. INS, 260 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam).

Aroehe Navarijo’s contention that the streamlining provisions violate his right to due process is foreclosed by Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848-52 (9th Cir. 2003).

We deny Aroehe Navarijo’s request that we remand this matter for adjustment of status. To the extent that Aroehe Navarijo requests a stay of voluntary departure, we deny his request. Cf. El Himri v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d at 1261, 1262-63 (9th Cir.2003) (order).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.