
    Gohar BAGHDASARYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71840.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 2, 2009.
    
    Filed Nov. 24, 2009.
    
      Serena Arfan Siew, Law Offices of James L. Rosenberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Patrick James Glen, Esquire, Deborah K. Snyder, Esquire, Gretchen M. Wolfinger, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, IKUTA, and SILER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
      
         The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is a petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an order of removal and denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The matter was submitted on the briefs after the individual who appeared at argument purporting to represent the petitioner failed to file a notice of appearance, make any substitution as counsel of record, provide any evidence that petitioner’s current counsel of record withdrew from the case, or show any authorization from the client to proceed on her behalf.

On the merits of the issues briefed, we hold that neither the BIA nor the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) erred in requiring the petitioner to comply with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). As the BIA correctly noted, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(iii) provides that the requirements established in Matter of La-zada apply in the context of an untimely filed asylum application. Applying that regulation, the BIA did not err in holding that petitioner’s asylum claim was untimely. The IJ’s adverse credibility determination also must be upheld because the petitioner, on appeal to the BIA or to this court, did not adequately address the reasons given by the IJ for the adverse determination. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996); Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir.2008).

The petition for review is DENIED.

IKUTA, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I concur in the result reached by the majority. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     