N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LUC IO ESONO M B A, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-70721 Age n c y No. A099-736-274 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Luc io Esono M

ba , a native and c itiz e n of Equa toria l Guine a , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED D EC 19 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a pply ing the sta

nda rds gove rning a d

ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nations c re ate d

by the REAL ID Ac t, Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010), a

nd we re vie w de novo c la im s of due proc e ss viola tions, Liu v . Holde r , 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th C ir. 2011). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding ba se d on the disc re pa

nc i e s be twe e n M ba ’ s a sy lum a p plic ation, his te stim o ny , an d his brothe r-in-la

w’ s te s tim ony . Se e Zamanov v . Holde r , 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ M ate ria l a lte rat ions in the a pplic ant’ s a c c ount of pe rse c ution a re suffic ie nt to support a

n a dve rse c re dibility

finding.” ); K

in v . Holde r , 595 F.3d 1050, 1058 (9th C ir. 2010) (a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation supporte d ba se d on inc o nsiste nc i e s be twe e n pe titione r’ s de c la rat ion a nd te s tim o ny of witne ss). The a ge nc y re a s ona

bly re je c te d M ba ’ s e xpla

nations for the se disc re pa nc ie s. Se e Riv e ra v . Muk ase y , 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th C ir. 2007). W e re j e c t M ba ’ s c onte ntion tha t the a ge nc y fa i le d to a de quate l y a ddre ss his im

pute d politic a l opinion c la im . Se e N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010) (the B IA “ doe s not ha ve to write an e xe ge sis on e v e ry c onte ntion” ). W e a l so re je c t M ba ’ s c onte ntion tha t he wa s pre ve nte d from

m aking c ha

nge s to his a sy lum a

pplic ation. Se e VargasHe rnande z v . Gonzale

s , 497 F.3d 919, 926-27 (9th C ir. 2007) (finding petitione r 1 1 - 7 0 7 2 1 2wa s give n a

full a nd fa i r opportunity

to pre se nt his c a se ); Lata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re q uiring e rror and pre

judic e for a

pe t itione r to pre va il on a due proc e s s c la im ). Ac c ordingly , in the a bse nc e of c re dible te stim o ny , M ba ’ s a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l c l a im s fa il. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). B e c a use M ba ’ s C A T c la im

is ba se d on the sam e te stim ony found to benot c re d ible , and the re c ord doe s not otherwise c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t it is m ore like ly tha n not tha t he will betorture d if re turne d to Equa toria l Guine a , his C AT c la im a lso fa ils. Se eid. at 1156-57. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 1 - 7 0 7 2 1 3