NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BOUBACAR DIALLO, AKA Mamadou No. 17-72637
Saliou Diallo,
Agency No. A209-165-659
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 27, 2018**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
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
*
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 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
2 17-72637
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-72637