Case Name: Bambang SUGIHARTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-17
Citations: 479 F. App'x 123
Docket Number: No. 08-73494
Parties: Bambang SUGIHARTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 123–124

Head Matter:
Bambang SUGIHARTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73494.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 17, 2012.
Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jesse Matthew Bless, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Bambang Sugiharto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal. 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 because Sugiharto's declarations and testimony gave three different versions of the December 19, 1999, attack at the orphanage — the central incident of his claim, see id. at 1043 (inconsistencies about the events leading up to petitioner's departure and the number of times he was arrested went to the heart of the claim), and the agency reasonably rejected Sugiharto's explanations, see Rivera v. Mulcasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Sugiharto's withholding of removal claim fails. 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 provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.