NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EZRA DAVE GIPAN MALING,

Petitioner,

v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER , Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70634 Agency No. A089

- 970

- 570

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 2, 2019 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Ezra Dave Gipan Maling , a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying adjustment of status; cancellation of removal for permanent and non permane nt residents; voluntary

* 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

JAN 4 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 70634

departure; waivers under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(1)(E), (H) and 1182(i); withholding of removal; and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252

. We deny in part and dismi ss in part

. 1. Maling challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, which the BIA affirmed. We “must uphold [ the adverse credibility determination ] unless the
evidence compels a contrary result.” Singh v. Holder , 643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 2011)

. We reject Maling’s contentions that the agency misconstrued his testimony or disregarded corroborating evidence. The BIA based its decision on multiple inconsistencies between Maling’s testimony and other documentary and testimonial
evidence in the rec ord as well as the implausibility of Maling’s explanations for the inconsistencies. The evidence on which Maling relies and the record as a whole do not compel a result contrary to that reached by the BIA

. See Singh

- Kaur v. INS , 183 F.3d 1147, 1149

– 50 (9 th Cir. 1999). In light of the adverse credibility determination , the record supports the agency’s finding that Maling is removable for attempting to procure an immigration benefit by willfully misrepresenting a material fact in his 2015 naturalization
in terview

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) (alien who is inadmissible at the time of entry or adjustment of status is removable ); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) ( alien who seeks an immigration benefit by willfully misrepresenting a material fact is inadmissible).3 16

- 70634

2. W e are not persuaded by Maling’s c ontentions that the agency’s discretionary denials of a djustment of status; cancellation of removal for perma nent and nonpermanent residents; voluntary departure; and waivers under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(1)(E), (H) and 1182( i) were based on legal or constitutional errors
. See
Corona

- Mendez v. Holder , 593 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court has jurisdiction to review a discretionary determination listed at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) only if it involves constitutional cla ims or questions of law). Given this determination, we need not address Maling’s challenge to the agency’s alternate ground for denying adjustment of status.
3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Maling is ineligible for withholding of removal because there are se rious reasons to believe
he committed a serious nonpolitical crime before entering the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii). The record includes a criminal complaint, arrest
warrants , news reports, and testimony indicating Maling has been charged with the
murder of his girlfriend in the Philippines , and Maling points to no contrary evidence other than his own testimony , which the agency found lacked credibility

. See Silva

Per eira v. Lynch , 827 F.3d 1176, 1188

– 90 (9th Cir. 2016) ( denying review where record included criminal indictment and sworn statements specifically linking alien to the crime in question ).4 16

- 70634

To the extent that Maling challenges whether the criminal proceeding documents from the Philippines were properly authenticated, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention because Maling did not raise it before the agency. See Tijani v. Holder , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010)

. Further, nothing in the BIA’s decision indicates it relied on the memorandum of investigation prepared by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent following his interrogation of Maling. Therefore, Maling’s due process claim regarding that memorandum fails. See
Padilla

- Martinez v. Holder , 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due

process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).
4. Substantial evidence also supports t he agency’s denial of CAT relief

. The record evidence, including testimony from Maling’s family and the U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices , does not compel
the conclusion that Maling is more likely than not to be tortured by or with the acquiescence of public officials in the Philippines. See Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part
.