Case Name: Calixto Galicia JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-12
Citations: 128 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 03-72065
Parties: Calixto Galicia JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 128
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
Calixto Galicia JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-72065.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 6, 2005.
Decided May 12, 2005.
Jaime Jasso, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., R. Lynne Harris, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BROWNING, FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Calixto Jimenez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal's ("BIA") opinion affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision denying his request for asylum and withholding of removal based on the IJ's adverse credibility determination. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), and we affirm.
Although some of the bases upon which the IJ relied for her adverse credibility finding were impermissibly based on speculation or conjecture, see Ge v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir.2004), other bases were supported by substantial evidence and went to the heart of Jimenez's claim. See Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir.2003) ("So long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [the] claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ's adverse credibility find ing."). Accordingly, the IJ did not err. The BIA properly reviewed the IJ's adverse credibility finding when it affirmed the IJ's decision.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.