Case ID: f-appx_181/html/0659-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Aster ABRHAM, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71728.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2006.
    
    Decided May 19, 2006.
    Steve Paek, Law Office of Steve Paek, Los Angeles, 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, Carol Federighi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aster Abrham, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance without opinion of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because it was based on inconsistencies that go to the heart of the claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).

Because Abrham failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Abrham’s claim under the CAT is based on the same testimony that the IJ found not credible, and she points to no other evidence that she could claim the IJ should have considered in making its determination under CAT, her CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1157.

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.