NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TRESOR DIRAISON TENE TEKOUNGA, 

AKA Tresor Diraison Tene Takounga, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-70131 

Agency No. A213-086-836 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 5, 2020**

Pasadena, California

Before: NGUYEN, HURWITZ, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Tresor Diraison Tene Takounga, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions 

for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing

his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 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).

FILED

MAR 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

(“CAT”). Tene Takounga claims that he was persecuted in Cameroon, and fears 

future persecution if removed, on account of his Anglophone identity and his 

political opinion in support of Anglophone teachers’ grievances. We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

1. Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. See 

Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010). Tene Takounga’s statements 

were inconsistent with respect to the timing of his ankle injury. In a credible fear 

interview, Tene Takounga stated that his ankle was broken during his first arrest. 

He made a similar claim in a separate declaration. However, he testified before the 

IJ that he did not sustain any injuries during his first arrest and that his ankle was 

injured during his second arrest.

Further, a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find that Tene 

Takounga’s testimony was consistent with the affidavit of his friend. See 

Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 920 (9th Cir. 2006). Tene Takounga 

testified that he stayed with a friend in Bamenda, the location of the teachers’ 

strike, for a period of approximately three months between December 2016 and 

February 2017, but the friend’s affidavit stated that Tene Takounga visited “in the 

month of December 2016 precisely on December 18th.”

2. The court lacks jurisdiction to consider the argument that the IJ did not 

allow Tene Takounga an opportunity to provide corroborating evidence because he
3 

did not raise the argument to the BIA. See Vargas v. U.S. Dep’t of Immigration & 

Naturalization, 831 F.2d 906, 907–08 (9th Cir. 1987).

3. In light of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, substantial evidence 

supported the IJ’s conclusion that Tene Takounga was not likely to be tortured if 

removed. See Almaghzar, 457 F.3d at 922. Tene Takounga has not established 

that he was tortured in the past. Nor has he established a sufficient likelihood of 

torture in the future: despite his proffered evidence that Anglophones (especially in 

Anglophone regions) have reportedly faced arrest and cruel treatment, including 

torture, Tene Takounga has not established that he is sufficiently similarly situated

to require the inference that he would face similar treatment, nor does he rebut the 

IJ’s finding that he could safely return to the city of Douala, located within the

predominantly French-speaking region of Littoral, where he grew up with his partAnglophone family.

Further, the IJ and BIA did not “manifestly fail[]” to consider all evidence 

relevant to the CAT claim. To the contrary, the IJ cited the State Department’s 

2017 Human Rights Report for Cameroon and the BIA specifically noted that Tene 

Takounga had “not presented any independent evidence that he would more likely 

than not be tortured . . . upon his repatriation to Cameroon.” The BIA need not 

discuss every piece of evidence submitted, and “[w]hen nothing in the record or 

the BIA’s decision indicates a failure to consider all the evidence, a ‘general 
4 

statement that [the agency] considered all the evidence before [it]’ may be 

sufficient.” Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (second alteration in 

original) (quoting Almaghzar, 457 F.3d at 922). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.