Case Name: Rudy Adolfo DOMINGUEZ-PAC, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-20
Citations: 81 F. App'x 937
Docket Number: No. 02-73943; Agency No. A72-124-582
Parties: Rudy Adolfo DOMINGUEZ-PAC, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 937–937

Head Matter:
Rudy Adolfo DOMINGUEZ-PAC, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-73943.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 10, 2003.
Decided Nov. 20, 2003.
Jonathan M. Kaufman, Law Offices of Alan M. Kaufman, San Francisco, 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, Richard M. Evans, Timothy P. Mcllmail, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KOZINSKI, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rudy Adolfo Dominguez-Pac, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") summarily affirming an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review credibility findings for substantial evidence. See Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 658 (9th Cir.2003).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's decision that Dominguez-Pac failed to establish eligibility for asylum because his testimony was vague, inconsistent, and implausible. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). The record does not compel a contrary finding. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not he cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.