Case Name: Ivo PARICHKOV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-24
Citations: 466 F. App'x 683
Docket Number: No. 09-71196
Parties: Ivo PARICHKOV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 683–685

Head Matter:
Ivo PARICHKOV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71196.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 24, 2012.
Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esquire, Tracey McDonald, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ivo Parichkov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility finding based on the inconsistencies between Parichkov's medical documentation and his testimony about the attacks and injuries he suffered from skinheads. See id. at 1043. Further, because the IJ had reason to question Parichkov's credibility, his failure to provide corroborating evidence undermines his claim. See id. at 1044-45. In light of our conclusion regarding the agency's adverse credibility finding, we do not reach Parichkov's pattern or practice contention. In the absence of credible evidence, Parichkov's asylum and withholding of remov al claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Because Parichkov's CAT claim is based on the same evidence that the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Bulgaria, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.