FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM GITAU MUNGE, No. 10-70858
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-167-113
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 11, 2011 **
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
William Gitau Munge, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration
judge’s order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies between Munge’s testimony and declaration regarding
the dates and the number of times the Mungiki kidnaped him. See Chebchoub v.
INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001) (inconsistencies which go to the heart of
petitioner’s asylum claim support an adverse credibility finding); Li v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004) (a negative credibility finding will be upheld “so
long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes
to the heart of [the] claim of persecution”) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Munge’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, because Munge’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony that
the BIA found not credible, and he points to no additional evidence that the BIA
should have considered regarding the likelihood of torture if he is returned to
Kenya, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
10-70858