Case Name: Joko WURYANTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-06
Citations: 467 F. App'x 755
Docket Number: No. 10-70932
Parties: Joko WURYANTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 755–756

Head Matter:
Joko WURYANTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70932.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Feb. 6, 2012.
Kathleen Siok-Sien Koh, Esquire, Law Office of Kathleen S. Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.
Ilissa M. Gould, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, 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
Joko Wuryanto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on the substantial discrepancies between Wuryanto's testimony and asylum application regarding what occurred during the 1996 and 2000 encounters he described. See id. at 1043; Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir.2007). Wuryanto's contentions that he was not afforded an opportunity to explain the discrepancies and that the BIA failed to provide its rationale for affirming the IJ's adverse credibility determination are belied by the record. In the absence of credible testimony, Wuryanto's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Because Wuryanto's CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Indonesia, his CAT claim 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.