Sasho Valeriev Dimitrov v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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 Michael W. Fitzgerald, United States District Judge***
for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SASHO VALERIEV DIMITROV,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72463
Agency No. A095-585-211
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 7, 2012**
Seattle, Washington
Before: TALLMAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD, District
Judge.***
Sasho Valeriev Dimitrov petitions for review of a final order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopting and affirming the decision of the
FILED
MAR 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
immigration judge (IJ) to deny Dimitrov’s application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Even if we assume, without deciding, that Dimitrov’s application for asylum
was timely filed, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
substantial evidence. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2002). By
pointing out material inconsistencies in Dimitrov’s testimony that undermined
Dimitrov’s claim that he was persecuted in Bulgaria on account of his status as a
Roma, the IJ provided a “legitimate, articulable basis to question” Dimitrov’s
credibility and “offer[ed] a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.” Id.
Because this discredited testimony went “to the heart of [Dimitrov’s] claim of
persecution,” we are “bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding” as to
Dimitrov’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d
1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). Since the record, “denuded of [Dimitrov’s] discredited
testimony,” does not compel a finding that Dimitrov is more likely than not to be
tortured if he is returned to Bulgaria, Dimitrov’s claim for CAT protection also
fails. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --