PETREA STETCO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-72618 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 12 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-72618 PETREA STETCO, Agency No. A098-344-912 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 10, 2014** San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, Senior District Judge.*** Petitioner, Petrea Stetco, is a Romanian citizen appealing the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention * 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). *** The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. Against Torture. Petitioner claims that he was subject to persecution on the basis of his Pentecostal Christian faith and that he fears future persecution if returned to Romania. The agency found him not credible. Adverse credibility determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence and will be upheld unless the evidence compels a different result. He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 595 (9th Cir. 2003). In a pre-REAL ID Act case, any inconsistency supporting an adverse credibility determination must go to the heart of the claim. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). The heart of Petitioner s claim is that he was threatened and mistreated on account of his Pentecostal faith. His prior Canadian petition, however, inconsistently attributed the same threats and mistreatment to retaliation by the Romanian mafia and former employees that he had supervised. The inconsistency is sufficient to support the adverse credibility determination. There is no evidence compelling a different conclusion. DENIED. 2
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.
