DIALLO AKA v. WHITAKER (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Boubacar Diallo, a native of the Ivory Coast and citizen of Guinea, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination, based on inconsistencies within Diallo’s testimony as to the 2012 stabbing, and on the omission of the 2015 threats from his asylum application. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Diallo’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Diallo’s corroborative evidence did not otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Diallo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Diallo’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the BIA found not credible, and Diallo does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Guinea. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.