UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ VINCENT N. LOUNCHI, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. No. 21-9534 (Petition for Review)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , McHUGH , and CARSON , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Petitioner Vincent Nkameni Lo unchi is a native and citiz en of the Republic of Cameroon. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) after finding his testimony lacked credibility. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal, finding no clear error in the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 28, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 21-9534 Document: 010110624803 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 12 Petitioner seeks review of the BIA’s order. Exercising jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition.
BACKGROUND The Department of Home land Security (DHS) initia ted removal proceedings, alleging Petitioner was removabl e under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a )(7)(A)(i)(I), as an applicant for admission without valid en try and travel documents. He admitted the factual allegations and sought asylum, withholding of remova l, and CAT relief on the ground that he fled Cameroon to escape persec ution based on his political opinion.
1. Testimony and Documents Petitioner testified he joined the Southe rn Cameroons National Council (SCNC), a political party that advocates for the independ ence of southern Cameroon, in 2015, and that he fled Cameroon after be ing detained in harsh conditi ons, threatened, and beaten by gendarmes because of his of his anti-gove rnment and separatist political opinion. Petitioner testified he participated in a protest march organized by the SCNC in 2016 during which poli ce surrounded the protesters and a rrested many of them, but he escaped. He testified further that during a 2017 protest march, an officer who had arrested Petitioner for refusing to pay money at a checkpoint recognized him and told other officers to arrest him, but he eluded them. Soon thereafter, he moved to another city because he feared being arrested. Petitioner also described an incident wher e, one morning at about 5:30 when he was preparing to go to a 6:00 church servic e, he responded to a knock at the door, thinking it was his friend he was staying with . He opened the door to two officers and Appellate Case: 21-9534 Document: 010110624803 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 23 tried to run back inside. The officers appreh ended and arrested him. He testified that they were in the house for only a few minute s. They took him to a gendarme camp where they detained him in a crowded cell for eight days. Guards beat and interrogated him twice daily, and doused him with dirty wa ter before each beating. He sustained wounds on his face, knees, legs, and laps. On the eighth day, while being transported to a maximum-security prison, Petitioner es caped during a restroom break. Petitioner returned to the city where he spent nights in different places to avoid being identified and arrested. A family friend who was a police commissioner told him to leave the country and gave hi m a copy of a warrant that ha d been issued for his arrest. Petitioner claimed that, while he was en route to the United States, gunmen in Colombia robbed the group he was travelling with, taking his passport and some of his money. They did not take the other identific ation documents and the almost $300 in cash he had when he arrived in the United States. He testified the robbers rummaged through his bag and that he did not have all of his money in the bag. Petitioner also submitted documentary evid ence, including an official criminal history document, his friend’s a ffidavit, and a photograph that he testified depicted his arrest. He said an unknown neighbor took the picture and gave it to the friend who then gave it to Petitioner’s wife. The friend’s a ffidavit said the neighbor showed him the picture, but it did not say the neighbor gave him the picture or that he gave it to Petitioner’s wife. The picture showed Petitione r with his hands hand cuffed in front of him. Petitioner testified the officers handcu ffed him in front because he was struggling and resisting arrest. Appellate Case: 21-9534 Document: 010110624803 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 34 It was daylight in the picture. After c ounsel for DHS pointed out that the sun did not rise until 6:22 that morning so it would ha ve been dark at 5:30, Petitioner insisted it was light out when he was arrested and said the arrest occurred during the “dry season” when “the sun comes out earlier.” R. at 329. He also said that it was about 5:30 when the officers arrived and that some time pa ssed by the time they dragged him outside where the neighbor took the picture. When reminded of his earlier testimony that the officers were inside for only a few minutes, he said he “wasn’t paying attention to the clock . . . but it took a while.” R. at 364. And when questi oned about his earlier testimony that he was getting ready for a 6:00 church service when the officers arrived, Petitioner insisted that it was typically light out when he walked to church. Counsel for DHS asked the IJ to take administrative no tice of the time of the sunrise the day of Petitioner’s arrest as reflected in a printout from the internet. Petitioner’s counsel did not object. The IJ granted the request, noting that the time of sunrise was a “scientific fact” appropriate for administrativ e notice. R. at 365. Petitioner also submitted what he said was the April 2017 arrest warrant he said his police commissioner friend had given him and a June 2017 criminal history document. When asked why the criminal history document showed no arrest warrants against him, he said it was the result of the Cameroonian government’s dysfunction and faulty record keeping.
2. The IJ’s Decision The IJ denied Petitioner’s applications fo r relief after finding him not credible because he “provided inconsiste nt testimony, many of his cl aims were implausible, he Appellate Case: 21-9534 Document: 010110624803 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 45 submitted documents that were not genuine, and his demeanor chan ged noticeably during portions of cross-examination” when challeng ed about inconsistencies in his evidence. R. at 84. In support of that determination, the IJ found the photo was “staged” and that Petitioner’s testimony about it was “untruthful[].” Id. The IJ explained that (1) the photo supposedly depicted Petitioner be ing dragged away, but it was “clear that the subjects in the picture [were] not moving” and that the o fficers “posed to create a look that they” were dragging him; (2) he did not convincingly explain why it was daylight in the picture given his testimony regarding the time of his a rrest; (3) contrary to his claim that he was handcuffed with his arms in front becaus e he was resisting arrest, he was likely handcuffed with his arms in front because if his arms had been be hind him “as would be expected, he would have been dragged with his face towa rds the ground, which would not have served [his] purposes in having his face appear in th e picture”; and (4) his “story about the photo’s origin [was] implausible” because it was unlikely an unknown neighbor would be outside the friend’s house at 5:30 a.m. and take one “perfectly centered and nearly perfectly timed” picture

. R. at 85. The IJ identified other aspects of Pe titioner’s evidence that undermined his credibility, including that it was “unclear who [he] actually is ,” because he failed to prove his identity, and his claim that robbers stol e his passport but not his money and other identification documents was implausible. R. at 85. The IJ also noted discrepancies between what Petitioner told the asylum officer and wh at he said in his 2014 visa application about his marital status, and the IJ did not believe his st atement to the asylum officer that he had forgotte n his wife’s name and referre d to her by the wrong name Appellate Case: 21-9534 Document: 010110624803 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 56 because their relationship “had be en so bad.” R. at 86. Fu rther, the IJ found the arrest warrant was “not legitimate” because the offici al criminal history document showed there were no outstanding warrants for him, and the body of the warrant was in French, not in English and French, as a Cameroonian warrant would be. R. at 86 & n.5. Finally, the IJ found Petitioner’s de meanor during cross-examination demonstrated a lack of credibility. In cont rast to his “calm” demeanor on direct examination, Petitioner became defensive an d animated when cr oss-examined about inconsistencies in his story. The IJ also noted that Petitioner wa s “often evasive in answering direct questions,” “went off on a tangent,” or referred to documents he had with him “instead of just answering questions based on his recollection.” R. at 87.
3. The BIA’s Decision The BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, concluding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was “based on specific and coge nt reasons” and was not clearly erroneous. R. at 3. The BIA acknowledged Petitioner’s arguments challenging each of the IJ’s findings, but found they did not “adequately reconcile[] the credibility issues” the IJ identified. R. at 5. In particular, the BIA upheld the IJ’s findings that the arrest warrant was not legitimate and that Petitioner’s testimony about the circumstances surrounding his arrest and the photo was not credible. The IJ also upheld the IJ’s finding that it was implausible that robbers wo uld take Petitioner’s passport but not all of his money, explaining th at it was not “illogical or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the evidence.” R. at 5. In so holding, the BIA noted that it might have reached a different conclusion if it were the factfinder but recognized that it was not at Appellate Case: 21-9534 Document: 010110624803 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 67 liberty to “substitute its own view of the evidence” fo r the IJ’s. R. at 8. Finally, the BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s demeanor find ing. And, having concluded that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not clea rly erroneous, the BIA held that the IJ properly denied Petitioner’s applications beca use without credible testimony, he could not establish his eligibility for asylum, wi thholding of removal, or CAT protection.
DISCUSSION Where, as here, a single BIA member issues a brief order deciding the merits of an appeal, we review the BIA’s order and cons ult the IJ’s decision when necessary to understand the grounds fo r the BIA’s decision. See Uanreroro v. Gonzales , 443 F.3d 1197, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006). The BIA reviews an IJ’s credibility findings “for clear error, and only clear error.” Kabba v. Mukasey , 530 F.3d 1239, 1244 (10th Cir. 2008). It may not substitute its judgment for the IJ’s because when “there are two permi ssible views of the evidence . . . the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). When the BIA’s application of the clear error standard amounts to a factual determination, we review its decisi on under the deferential substantial-evidence standard. Kabba , 530 F.3d at 1244. Under that standard, “our duty is to gu arantee that factual determinations are supported by reasonable, subs tantial and probative evidence considering the record as a whole.” Elzour v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 1143, 1150 (10th Cir. 2004 ). We ensure that the IJ gives “specific, cogent reasons for di sbelieving [the alien’s] testimony,” Elzour v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 1143, 1150 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted), and Appellate Case: 21-9534 Document: 010110624803 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 78 does not base an implausibility finding on “speculation, conjecture, or unsupported personal opinion,” id. at 1153. But we do not rewe igh the evidence or “question credibility findings that are s ubstantially reasonable.” Ismaiel v. Mukasey , 516 F.3d 1198, 1205 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quota tion marks omitted). Th e agency’s factual findings “are conclusive unless any reasonab le adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Thus, if the evidence and reasonable inferences support conflicting vers ions of events, we may not disturb the BIA’s choice between them. To reverse its decision “we must find that the evidence not only supports [Petitioner’s] conclusion, but compels it.” I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). Petitioner contends the BIA erred by (1) up holding the IJ’s administrative notice decision; (2) finding no clear error in the IJ’s adverse credibility determination; and (3) failing to consider evid ence apart from the adverse cr edibility determination.
1. Administrative Notice Petitioner takes issue with the administra tive notice decision because counsel for DHS did not explain why the website was a cr edible and authoritative source. He also contends the IJ did not evalua te “the reliability and scholarsh ip of the information,” and should have “substantiate[d] [the information DHS provided] with [the opinion of] an expert witness.” Pet. Br. at 18-19. 1

1 We note that, because Petitioner di d not object to DHS’s administrative notice request when given an opportunity to do so at the hearing, the BIA could have declined to address the issue on waiver grounds. See Torres de la Cruz v. Maurer , 483 F.3d 1013, 1023 ( 10th Cir. 2007). Appellate Case: 21-9534 Document: 010110624803 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 89 An agency may take administrative noti ce of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute” because it is “capable of accurate and ready de termination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” de la Llana-Castellon v.
I.N.S. , 16 F.3d 1093, 1096 (10th Ci r. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Scientific facts such as when the sun rose or set on a pa rticular day are among “the kinds of things about which courts ordinarily” take notice. Shahar v. Bowers , 120 F.3d 211, 214 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Koske , 279 U.S. 7, 12 (1929) (taking judicial notice of the time of s unrise and light conditions). And it is not uncommon for courts to take notice of “fac tual information found on the world wide web.” O’Toole v. Northrop Grumman Corp ., 499 F.3d 1218, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007). The BIA rejected Petitioner’s challenge to the IJ’s decision because he failed to “present any evidence or otherwise suffi ciently demonstrate on appeal how the administratively noticed fact is subject to re asonable dispute.” R. at 4. We agree—the time of sunrise the day of Petitioner’s arrest is easily verifiable, and he presented no evidence establishing either that the time shown on the printout was inaccurate or that the website was an unreliable source. 2
2. Adverse Credibilit y Determination Petitioner next contends the BIA erred in concluding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not clearly e rroneous. Specifically, he claims the record does not

2 Petitioner’s citation to cases discredi ting Wikipedia articl es is unhelpful because the website at issue here is not Wikipedia. Appellate Case: 21-9534 Document: 010110624803 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 910 support the IJ’s findings that the arrest photo was staged and that his story about the theft of his passport was implausible. 3 But he concedes “the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by permissible views of the evidence.” Pe t. Br. at 27. While he argues there is record support for a contrary finding, this argument is insufficient to show the agency decisi on is unsupported by s ubstantial evidence. See Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 481 n.1. Considering the record as a whole, we conclude the BIA’s de cision is supported by substantial evidence. The IJ gave speci fic, cogent reasons for finding Petitioner not credible and properly based that determina tion on inconsistencies in his testimony, inconsistencies between his te stimony and his documentary ev idence, inconsistencies in his documents, concerns about his demeanor, a nd the conclusion that key aspects of his story were implausible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (providing that an IJ “may base a credibility determination on th e [applicant’s] demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the plausibility of his acco unt, and inconsistencies in his statements, “without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim”); Elzour , 378 F.3d at 1152. The BIA correctly reje cted Petitioner’s assertion that the IJ was required to credit his explanations. See Matter of D-R- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 445, 455 (B.I.A. 2011) (an IJ “is not required to accept a respon dent’s assertions, even if plausible, where there are other permissible views of the ev idence based on the record.”). And while

3 Petitioner does not challenge and has therefore waived any arguments he might have made regarding ot her aspects of the BIA’s re view of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Kabba , 530 F.3d at 1248 (argum ents not raised or inadequately brie fed are waived). Appellate Case: 21-9534 Document: 010110624803 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 1011 reasonable minds could differ about the plau sibility of Petitioner’s testimony regarding his arrest, the photo, and the passport th eft, substantial evidence—including the administratively noticed fact of the time of sunrise the day of his arrest and the IJ’s unchallenged demeanor finding—supports the BIA’s determination. See Chaib v. Ashcroft , 397 F.3d 1273, 1278 (10th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that an incredibility determination may be based on inherent inconsistencies in th e applicant’s testimony, the implausibility of his story, and testimonial demeanor).
3. Other Evidence We also reject Petitioner’s contenti on that the BIA e rred by denying his applications for relief base d solely on the adverse cr edibility determination. An applicant’s testimony, if credible, ma y be enough to satisfy his burden of establishing entitlement to relief. 8 U.S. C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)( ii)-(iii) (asylum); id. § 1231(b)(3)(C) (withholding) (incorpora ting asylum standards); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (CAT relief). Conversely, if th e agency determines that his testimony is not credible, it may deny relief on that basis alone. See id. The record indicates that th e IJ considered Petitioner’s other evidence and found it insufficient to support his app lications absent credible tes timony from him. We presume the BIA reviewed the comp lete record as well. See Batalova v. Ashcroft , 355 F.3d 1246, 1252 (10th Cir. 2004). The BIA mentioned some of Pet itioner’s other evidence in outlining the factual background and his testimony, and the fa ct that it did not expressly discuss each piece of evidence or explain why the other ev idence was in sufficient to overcome the adverse credibility determination does not mean it failed to consider his Appellate Case: 21-9534 Document: 010110624803 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 1112 evidence. See Hadjimehdigholi v. INS , 49 F.3d 642, 648 n.2 (10th Cir. 1995). Its decision appropriately focuse d on Petitioner’s credibility, and we find no error in its conclusion that his lack of credible te stimony prevented him from establishing his entitlement to relief. See Matter of M-S- , 21 I. & N. Dec. 125, 129 (B.I.A. 1995) (“A persecution claim which lacks veracity cannot satisfy the burdens of proof and persuasion necessary to establish eligibility fo r asylum and withholding relief.”). 4 Finally, Petitioner argues the BIA “failed to comply with its own regulations and erred in failing to submit this case to a three-member panel fo r decision.” Pet. Br. at 2. But he does not develop this ar gument beyond this one-senten ce assertion, and he does not even acknowledge th e criteria for assigning a three-judge panel, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6), much less argue those criteria were satisfied here. Accordingly, we decline to address it. See Bronson v. Swensen , 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007).
CONCLUSION We deny the petition for review.

Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III Circuit Judge

4 We are not persuaded otherwise by Petitioner’s citation to out-of-circuit authority holding that an IJ may not deny relief on the basis of incredible testimony alone if other objective evidence supports th e applicant’s claim for relief. Those cases are inapposite here because the other evidence Pe titioner submitted in support of his persecution claim was either not individualized (the country conditions evidence) or not objective (his friends’ and family members’ affidavits and letters). Appellate Case: 21-9534 Document: 010110624803 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 12