Francisco Cayetano v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-70889 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED APR 12 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO C. CAYETANO, Petitioner, No. 08-70889 Agency No. A070-085-038 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 5, 2011 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Francisco C. Cayetano, a native and citizen of the Philippines, 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for * 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). substantial evidence findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s adverse credibility determination because Cayetano admitted his original asylum application was not truthful regarding the incident that allegedly prompted his persecutors to abduct and threaten him. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2005) (lying on an asylum application is an indication of dishonesty ); Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-42 (9th Cir. 2007) (discrepancies regarding the event that allegedly spurred [the persecutors] to threaten [petitioner] goes to the heart of his persecution claim and is not trivial ). In the absence of credible testimony, Cayetano s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-70889

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.