Case ID: f-appx_324/html/0610-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vasile LOBANT, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72588.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2009.
    
    Filed April 27, 2009.
    Jagdip Singh Sekhon, Esq., Sekhon & Sekhon, PLC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John M. McAdams, Jr., Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Elizabeth Seward, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Court of Federal Claims, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vasile Lobant, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination because Lobant’s asylum application and testimony were inconsistent, and his testimony was internally inconsistent, concerning whether the police were present and failed to take action during the March 3, 2001 attack, and this inconsistency goes to the heart of his claim of persecution on account of his religion. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2007) (discrepancies relating to the basis for an alleged fear of persecution support an adverse credibility-finding). Therefore Lobant’s asylum and -withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

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