FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 24 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OTGONNYAM BATCHULUUN, No. 16-70003
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-671-487
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BATTS,*** District
Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Deborah A. Batts, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Otgonnyam Batchuluun, native and citizen of Mongolia, petitions for review
of the denial by Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition
for review.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination on three
grounds. “[W]e must uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination so long as
even one basis is supported by substantial evidence.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d
1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s affirmance of
the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Most notably, Batchuluun testified
inconsistently with regard to his journalism career. He was confronted with the
inconsistencies surrounding his career, including testimony regarding how many
articles he wrote, how many he wrote under an alias, and his importance to the
newspaper.1 The IJ and the BIA did not find his explanations as to his evolving
story to be persuasive, concluding that Batchuluun’s story lacked the ring of truth.
See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005); Singh v. Holder,
1
Batchuluun raised the issue for the first time on appeal that the IJ’s
reliance on the asylum officer’s assessment to refer rather than sworn interview
notes or a transcript was error. Because he failed to exhaust this issue before the
BIA, this panel lacks jurisdiction to review it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
2
638 F.3d 1264, 1270 (9th Cir. 2011). This finding alone supports the adverse
credibility determination. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1088.
The BIA’s other identified reasons for Batchuluun’s adverse credibility
finding—failure to mention his computer was stolen when he was attacked and
inability to explain why he didn’t know a reporter who was (1) listed as an attendee
at the same conference he was suppose to attend and (2) from his same eight-
person newspaper office—further support the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination based on a totality of the circumstances. See Shrestha v. Holder,
590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010). Nothing in the record compels a contrary
conclusion. Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014).
In the absence of credible testimony, Batchuluun’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003). Because Batchuluun’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the IJ
found not credible, and Batchuluun does not point to any other evidence in the
record to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured in Mongolia, his
CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3