
    Osbaldo PEREZ DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72048.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 12, 2011.
    
      Peter Hurtado, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    District Director, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Osbaldo Perez Diaz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 deportation. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 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 agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the major inconsistencies within and between Perez Diaz’s asylum application and his testimony concerning what year guerrillas killed his father and what year Perez Diaz left Guatemala. See id. at 1042-43; Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-42 (9th Cir.2007) (a date discrepancy “went to the heart of [petitioner’s] claim because it involved the very event upon which he predicated his claim for asylum”). Nor do his explanations compel a contrary conclusion. Don, 476 F.3d at 741. In the absence of credible testimony, Perez Diaz’s asylum and withholding of deportation claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     