Case ID: f-appx_514/html/0637-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sasho Valeriev DIMITROV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72463.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 7, 2012.
    
    Filed March 21, 2013.
    Nicolette Glazer, Law Offices of Larry R. Glazer, Century City, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lindsay Williams Zimliki, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TALLMAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sasho Valeriev Dimitrov petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopting and affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) to deny Dimitrov’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

Even if we assume, without deciding, that Dimitrov’s application for asylum was timely filed, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002). By pointing out material inconsistencies in Dimitrov’s testimony that undermined Dimitrov’s claim that he was persecuted in Bulgaria on account of his status as a Roma, the IJ provided a “legitimate, articulable basis to question” Dimitrov’s credibility and “offer[ed] a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.” Id. Because this discredited testimony went “to the heart of [Dimitrov’s] claim of persecution,” we are “bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding” as to Dimitrov’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir.2003). Since the record, “denuded of [Dimitrov’s] discredited testimony,” does not compel a finding that Dimitrov is more likely than not to be tortured if he is returned to Bulgaria, Dimitrov’s claim for CAT protection also fails. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048-49 (9th Cir.2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.