Case Name: Fidia YEO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-25
Citations: 467 F. App'x 609
Docket Number: No. 09-72888
Parties: Fidia YEO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 609–609

Head Matter:
Fidia YEO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72888.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 25, 2012.
Frank Man Kit Tse, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Tracey McDonald, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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
Fidia Yeo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence. Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.2011). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility finding based on Yeo's admitted misrepresentations in her initial declaration regarding the 1998 riots. See id. at 1181 (upholding adverse credibility finding where petitioner made conscious decision to lie). Further, the agency was not compelled to accept Yeo's explanations for the false statements, see Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.2011), and the record does not otherwise compel a finding of credibility, see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, we deny the petition as to Yeo's asylum and withholding of removal claims. 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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.