Case ID: f-appx_146/html/0929-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vigny SONZEU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71909.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2005.
    
    Decided Oct. 27, 2005.
    Steven A. Seick, Esq., Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, 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, Richard M. Evans, Esq., John Davis, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

We deny Sonzeu’s petition for review of the denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

The Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination was supported by specific and cogent reasons, that is, “such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” The Immigration Judge pointed to specific inconsistencies and improbable statements in Sonzeu’s testimony that led to his disbelief. Substantial evidence also supported the Immigration Judge’s determination that Sonzeu’s fear was of punishment for desertion, not of persecution on account of a protected ground.

Petition 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Berroteran-Melendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir.1992).