UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

HAI OU CHEN, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General, Respondent. No. 14-9525 (Petition for Review)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , PORFILIO , and MATHESON , Circuit Judges.

Hai Ou Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeal s’ (BIA) order of removal. We deny the petition for review. Mr. Chen was smuggled across th e Mexico-United States border on December 10, 2008. He was charged with re movability as an i ndividual who entered

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### September 23, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - the United States while not in possession of a valid border-crossing document. He conceded removability and re quested asylum, wi thholding of remova l, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He claime d he would be persecuted and tortured if returned to China because he was a Falun Gong practitioner. An immigration judge (IJ) held a hear ing at which Mr. Chen and his brother testified. Mr. Chen was repr esented by counsel. He test ified that while in China, because he was a Falun Gong practitioner, he was arrest ed, detained, interrogated, beaten, and subjected to police surveillance. In addition, he was fired from his job, which he believed was caused by his practice of Falun Gong and the police interest in him. Mr. Chen was questione d about his entry into the United States; his jobs in New York City, North Carolin a, and Colorado; and the names of his employers and friends. Mr. Chen repeatedly testified that he di d not know or had forgotten all of the particulars of these matters, such as whether he had cr ossed the border by boat or by truck, the name of the restaurant in Ne w York where he had worked, and the names of his boss and friends in North Carolina wh ere he lived for one and one-half years. Even when counsel attempte d to refresh his recollecti on with a writing he made shortly after he crossed the border, Mr. Ch en stated he still could not remember anything about his arriva l in the United States. At the conclusion of the hearing, the IJ indicated that the contradictions and gaps in Mr. Chen’s testimony cast serious do ubt on his credibility. Accordingly, the IJ kept the record open to allow both sides to submit corroborating or clarifying- 3 - evidence. Mr. Chen submitted his own a ffidavit supplementing and explaining his testimony. The IJ accorded the affidav it no weight, a ruling Mr. Chen does not challenge. The IJ found that Mr. Chen was not cr edible based on the totality of the testimony and the documentary evidence of re cord. Therefore, the IJ held that Mr. Chen had failed to carry his burden to show he was qualified for the relief requested. Mr. Chen appeal ed to the BIA, which dism issed the appeal, concluding that the numerous inconsistencies in Mr . Chen’s testimony supported the IJ’s credibility assessment. On a ppeal to this court, he ch allenges the adverse credibility finding. We review the BIA’s decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence, consideri ng the record as a whole. Neri-Garcia v. Holder , 696 F.3d 1003, 1008 (10th Cir. 2012). “Agency findings of fact are conclusive unless the record demonstrates that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Sidabutar v. Gonzales , 503 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Id. The BIA issued a single-me mber decision. Therefore, “although we will not affirm on grounds raised in the IJ decision unless they are relied upon by the BIA, we are not preclude d from consulting the IJ’s more complete explanation of those same grounds.” Maatougui v. Holder , 738 F.3d 1230, 1237 n.2 (10th Cir. 2013) (interna l quotation marks, brackets and ellipsis omitted).- 4 - On appeal, Mr. Chen challenges only th e IJ’s determination that he was not credible, offering plausible explanations for his inconsistent testimony and inability to remember basic facts. He contends that he had no reas on to lie about those matters to support his eligibility for asylum, so the testimony in que stion was irrelevant. He further argues that his testimony was corrob orated by supporting documents, but he relies only on his own affidavit submitted afte r the IJ hearing, wh ich the IJ gave no weight. As Mr. Chen acknowledges, a credib ility determination may be based on inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or fals ehoods, “without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(4)(C) (relief from removal in general), 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (asylum claims). Neverthele ss, “the IJ must give sp ecific, cogent reasons for disbelieving [the applicant’s testimony]. An IJ’s finding that an applicant’s testimony is implausible may not be ba sed upon speculation, conjecture, or unsupported personal opinion.” Ismaiel v. Mukasey , 516 F.3d 1198, 1205 (10th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). After reviewing Mr. Chen’s testimony, the BIA upheld the IJ’s credibility determination based on “the cumulative na ture of the numerous inconsistencies.” Admin. R. at 4. The IJ noted that Mr. Ch en could remember the details of what had happened to him in China, but could not re member subsequent events in the United States. In addition, the IJ observed that while Mr. Chen might not be expected to- 5 - remember the exact address of the restaurant where he worked in New York, it was inexplicable that he could not recall its name. Similarl y, the IJ found inexplicable Mr. Chen’s inability to re member the names of his bo ss in North Carolina or the friend with whom he lived. We determine that the IJ a nd BIA gave adequate reasons for finding Mr. Chen not credible. His a ppellate arguments ask us to reassess his credibility in light of his explanations for his inconsis tent testimony and inability to remember basic facts, which we may not do, see Sidabutar , 503 F.3d at 1122. We conclude that the BIA’s holding that Mr. Ch en failed to meet his burden to show he was eligible for asylum is suppo rted by substantial evidence. We also conclude that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination is dispositive of Mr. Chen’s request for rest riction on removal. “Having failed to establish that he is entitled to discretionary consideration for as ylum, Mr. [Chen] has perforce failed to establish that he is entitled to [restric tion on] removal, which, we have acknowledged, requires a petitioner to meet a higher standa rd than that for asylum.” Ustyan v. Ashcroft , 367 F.3d 1215, 1218 (10t h Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, we consider Mr. Chen’s request for CAT relief. “Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture prohi bits the return of an alie n to a country where it is more likely than not that he will be subjec t to torture by a public official, or at the instigation or with the acquies cence of such an official.” Cruz-Funez v. Gonzales , 406 F.3d 1187, 1192 (10th Ci r. 2005) (brackets and internal quotation marks- 6 - omitted). Because there is no such evidence in the record, Mr. Chen failed to carry his burden of proof, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), and the BIA correctly affirmed the
IJ = s decision denying Mr. Chen’s request for CAT relief. The petition for review is denied.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge