NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIFLAY TEKLELDET GEBRU, No. 16-71242
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-669-262
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Kiflay Tekleldet Gebru, a native of Ethiopia and citizen of Eritrea, petitions
pro se 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 protection 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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Gebru’s testimony and declaration as to the
length of his detention at the police station and details of his physical mistreatment
during interrogation. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable
under the “totality of circumstances”). Gebru’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, Gebru’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Gebru’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements the
agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel a finding that
it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Eritrea. See
Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, we reject Gebru’s contention that the agency failed to consider
record evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.
2 16-71242
2000); Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-71242