NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VASILE DOREL FILIP, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 10-71664 Agency No. A098-925-046

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 9, 2014 ** San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Vasile Dorel Filip petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Unite d Nations Convention Against Torture 

# FILED

JUN 16 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursu ant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Petitioner was not credible. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA provided specific, cogent reasons for its adverse credibility finding, including: (1) Petitioner did not include in his applicati on allegations that he was assaulted in front of the chief of police; (2) Petiti oner provided inconsistent dates for his allegations that someone sabotaged the brakes on his car; (3) he omitted other important details from his application, including death threats, and failed to provide a plausible explanation for the omissions; and (4) when asked to clarify inconsistencies and omissions, he provi ded unpersuasive explanations. Those inconsistencies are permissible consider ations in reaching an adverse credibility finding. See Kin v. Holder , 595 F.3d 1050, 1056–57 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that omission of crucial facts in an application constitutes substantial evidence to support an adverse credibility finding). Si milarly, inconsistencies, "accompanied by other indications of dishonesty—such as a pattern of clear and pervasive inconsistency or contradi ction"—constitute substantial evidence in support of an adverse credibility determination. Kaur v. Gonzales , 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.

22005). Nothing in the record compels a contrary conclusion. See Morgan v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating standard). 2. Even assuming credibility, subs tantial evidence supports the BIA’s alternative finding that Petitioner failed to establish that a protected ground was "one central reason" for past or future persecution. Parussimova v. Mukasey , 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioner’s ge neral allegations that his persecutors, that is, his former in-laws, were aware of his ethnicity as a Roma are insufficient to satisfy the "one central reason" standard, where the record showed that the dispute was primarily a familial squabble. See id. at 742 (holding that reference to a victim’s ethnicity during an attack with multiple motivations was insufficient to satisfy the "one central reason" standard). 3. Failure to satisfy the lesser sta ndard of proof required to establish eligibility for asylum necessarily results in failure to satisfy the “clear probability” standard for withholding of removal. Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 4. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Petitioner was ineligible for CAT relief. Petitioner fa iled to present any evidence that would compel the conclusion “that he would most likely be tortured by or with the

3acquiescence of a government official or other person acting in an official capacity” upon removal. Tamang v. Holder , 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION DENIED.

4