Opinion
No. 06-72285.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed January 22, 2008.
Martha L. Cordoba, Esq., Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Keeney, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A70-923-719.
Before: HALL, O'SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Alfredo Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") that adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination based upon Soto's demeanor while testifying. The IJ identified Soto's hesitation and evasiveness with sufficient particularity to support the demeanor finding. See Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 686 (9th Cir. 2003). The demeanor finding also augmented the IJ's findings on inconsistencies between Soto's testimony and asylum application regarding the threats he received. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming an adverse credibility finding where demeanor, inconsistent testimony, and implausible explanations all supported the IJ's credibility determination). Further, the IJ properly concluded that evasive and inconsistent testimony about subsequent detentions at the border undermined his overall credibility. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that Soto failed to establish eligibility for asylum. See Li, 378 F.3d at 963.
Because Soto failed to meet his burden for asylum, he necessarily did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003).