Case Name: Jose Armando ALVAREZ-VILLANEUVA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-25
Citations: 31 F. App'x 455
Docket Number: No. 01-70030; INS No. A72-408-345
Parties: Jose Armando ALVAREZ-VILLANEUVA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 31
Pages: 455–456

Head Matter:
Jose Armando ALVAREZ-VILLANEUVA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 01-70030. INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2002.
Decided Feb. 25, 2002.
Before B. FLETCHER, T.G. NELSON, and RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Armando Alvarez-Villaneuva, a native and citizen of El Salvador, appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Because the transitional rules apply, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997).
Because the BIA conducted a de novo review of the record, we review the BIA's decision. Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir.2001). Because the Immigration Judge found Alvarez-Villaneuva to be credible, and the BIA did not disturb that finding, we are required to accept Alvarez-Villaneuva's testimony as true. Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir.2000). We review for substantial evidence and must uphold the BIA's findings unless the evidence compels a contrary finding. Molina-Morales, 237 F.3d at 1050. We deny the petition for review.
Because changed country conditions support the BIA's decision denying asylum and withholding of deportation, the petition for review is denied. See Ventura v. INS, 264 F.3d 1150, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2001).
Alvarez-Villaneuva's remaining claims lack merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.