FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAOSAR ALAM, No. 11-70619
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-885-263
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Kaosar Alam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, 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
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies between Alam’s testimony and his declaration and
documentary evidence regarding the timing of an attack on his business. See id. at
1046-47; see also Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)
(discrepancies between testimony and documentary evidence are a proper basis for
an adverse credibility finding). The agency reasonably rejected Alam’s
explanation for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275
(9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Alam’s asylum and
withholding claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
Because Alam’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found
not credible, and he points to no other evidence in the record to show it is more
likely than not that he would be tortured in Bangladesh, his CAT claim fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-70619