Efendi, et al v. Holder, No. 07-74772 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 28 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FNU EFENDI, a.k.a. Efendi Efendi, Petitioner, No. 07-74772 Agency No. A097-586-699 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Fnu Efendi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s adverse credibility determination because the multiple discrepancies and omissions between Efendi s declaration and his testimony regarding the circumstances of his single incident of harm, including whether he lost consciousness, how he went to the hospital, and when he fled Indonesia, go to the heart of his claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Efendi s withholding of removal claim fails. Because Efendi s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the IJ found not credible, and he offers no other evidence the agency should have considered, his CAT claim also fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, we decline to address Efendi s contentions relating to the merits of his claim because the adverse credibility determination is dispositive. See id. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 07-74772
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
