Case ID: f-appx_103/html/0320-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rufino Juan DIEGO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70462.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2004.
    
    Decided July 21, 2004.
    Rufino Juan Diego, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rufino Juan Diego, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“U”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review for substantial evidence, Molinctr-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because it identified material discrepancies between Diego’s asylum application and his testimony. See Taha v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 623, 627 (9th Cir.2004).

Because Diego did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245,1255 (9th Cir.2003).

Pursuant to Elian v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 897, 901 (9th Cir.2004) (order), the Diego’s voluntary departure period will begin to run upon issuance of this court’s mandate.

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.