Case Name: Marvin Raul RODRIGUEZ-PAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-28
Citations: 346 F. App'x 239
Docket Number: No. 06-75756
Parties: Marvin Raul RODRIGUEZ-PAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 346
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
Marvin Raul RODRIGUEZ-PAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75756.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Sept. 28, 2009.
Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Kevin James Conway, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Marvin Raul Rodriguez-Pao, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Rodriguez-Pao's challenge to the denial of his asylum claim because he failed to exhaust it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on the omission from RodriguezPao's declaration of his union involvement and his problems with the union, and based on internal inconsistencies in his testimony regarding the dates he was hired and fired. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-64 (9th Cir.2004), see also Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.2005). Rodriguez-Pao failed to adequately explain these discrepancies and omission when given the opportunity, see id. at 1066-67, and they go to the heart of his claim, Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043. Accordingly, Rodriguez-Pao's withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.