NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSELINE CHOH NGWE,

Petitioner,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 20

- 72586

Agency No. A201

- 759

- 541

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 5, 2021 * * Anchorage, Alaska Submission Vacated August 17 , 2021 Resubmitted October 5, 2021
Before: WARDLAW, MILLER, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Roseline Choh Ngwe pet itions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of h er
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

* 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

OCT 7 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursu ant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252, and we deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.

1. Ngwe argues that the agency failed to adequately consider two pieces

of evidence

— a bail bond application and a bail bond

— which she argues
corroborate her account of persecution and compel a finding of past persecution.

But Ngwe did not raise this argument before the BIA. Moreover, the statements in
her briefing to the BIA that the “ IJ erred while considering the facts
, ” and failed to

evaluate other evidence of record were not sufficient to put the BIA on notice that
she was challenging the IJ’s treatment of her corroborating evidence. See Segura

v. Holder , 605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 20 10 ) ( finding “broad statements”
insufficient to put the BIA on notice of a petitioner’s claim)

. Because this issue is
unexhausted, we lack jurisdiction to reach it. See Sola v. Holder , 720 F.3d 1134,

1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam)

.
2. Ngwe argues that the agency’s adverse credibility determination was
unsupported by substantial evidence. We dis agree. When evaluating an adverse
credibility finding, “ we must look to the ‘totality of the circumstances [ ] and all

relevant factors.’” Alam v. Garland
, — F.4th

— , 2021 WL 4075331, at *5 (9th
Cir. Sept. 8, 2021) (en banc) (alteration in original) (quot ing 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)) (overruling former precedents that “employed the single
factor rule”). There were significant inconsistencies in Ngwe’s testimony about3

her stay at a friend’s house after escaping from prison and about an anonymous

note she received , and this testimony concerned the core details of her alleged

persecution

. See Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1046

– 47 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go the heart of the petitioner’s claim

[to support an adver se credibility finding], when an inconsistency is at the heart of
the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). Moreover , the record does not compel

the conclusion that these inconsistencies were the result of a misunderstanding
between Ngwe and the IJ , p articularly given that Ngwe is highly educated and a
native English speaker, and the IJ repeatedly asked her to explain the

inconsistencies

. See Molina

- Morales v. INS , 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001)
(“We must uphold findings by the BIA unless the evidence compels a contrary
conclusion.” ( internal quotation marks omitted))

. Having considered the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors,

w e find t hese two inconsistencies sufficient to support the agency’s adverse
credibility determinat ion. See Alam
, 2021 WL 4075331, at *5.

3. Ngwe argues that despite the agency’s adverse credibility

determination, her country conditions evidence compelled the conclusion that she
more likely than not will be tortured if return ed to Cameroon. We disagr ee.
Although Ngwe presented evidence of widespread violence against Anglophones,
the agency concluded that this evidence “did not establish that [she] currently faces4

a particularized risk of torture.” Ngwe points to no evidence that compels a

contrary c onclusion. See Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.

2014). 1

DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

1 Ngwe also asserts that the IJ mischaracterized and inadequately considered her country condition evi dence, particularly a 2018 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report on Cameroon and a news article on genocide in Cameroon. But the IJ adequately addressed this evidence and concluded that it did not establish Ngwe’s eligibility for CAT relief.