NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODRIGUE BOUNDJI EFALEMA, No. 15-73918
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-576-212
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Rodrigue Boundji Efalema, native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of
Congo, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies as to the circumstances of Efalema’s father’s
disappearance and whether he remained missing, details of the alleged attack
against Efalema, and when Efalema believed his father was in danger. See id. at
1046-47 (although inconsistencies no longer need to “go to the heart” of the claim
under the REAL ID Act, where an inconsistency does go to the heart of the claim,
“it doubtless is of great weight”). Efalema’s explanations do not compel a contrary
result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of
credible testimony, in this case, Efalema’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Efalema’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
the agency found not credible, and Efalema does not point to any evidence that
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to the Democratic Republic of Congo. See id. at 1156-57.
2 15-73918
Efalema’s motion to adopt the opening brief (Docket Entry No. 28) is
granted.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-73918