NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILDY PETIT FRERE, No. 18-71772
Petitioner, Agency No. A209-865-210
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Wildy Petit Frere, a native and citizen of Haiti, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
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 and omissions in Petit Frere’s testimony, credible fear
interview, asylum declaration, and documentary evidence, as to the number of
times he was attacked in Haiti, the dates of the attacks, and the type of medical
treatment he received. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Thus, in the absence of credible
testimony, in this case, we deny the petition for review as to Petit Frere’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156
(9th Cir. 2014).
Petit Frere’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
the agency found not credible, and Petit Frere does not point to any other evidence
in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be
2 18-71772
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Haiti or
Brazil. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-71772