### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-60504 Summary Calendar

DANIEL TEBOH,
Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A099 646 447

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Daniel Teboh, a n ative and citizen of C a m e r o o n, has filed a p etition for review of the order of the Boa r d o f Immigration Appeals (BIA) a ffirming the denia l o f his application for asylum, withholding o f removal, and protection under the Convention A gainst Torture (CAT). In affirming the d enial of asylum, the BIA conclud e d t h a t t h e i mmigration judge ( IJ) d id not err in finding that Teboh was not credible as a witness and that the IJ was reasonable in expecting U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 22, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-60504 Document: 00512215625 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2013No. 12-60504

Teboh to corroborate the factual b ases for his claim with statements from his immediate family members in Cameroon. Teboh challenges those concl u s i o n s , a s s e r ti n g t h a t h e t e s t i f i e d c o n s i s tently about the facts regarding his persecution and that his testimony was sufficiently corroborated. Teboh a lso asserts that the IJ made irrational assumptions about his ability to g ather documents from family members in Cameroon a nd that the BIA erred in requiring specific c orroborating evidence. The B I A ’ s decision to uphold t he IJ’s a dverse c redib ility determination is r eviewed under the substantial evidence standard. See Orellana-Monso n v . H o lder , 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). While Teboh discusses the parts of h is testimony that w e re consistent, he does not specifically address any of the numerous inconsistencies cited by the IJ and BIA. “[A]n IJ m ay rely on any inconsistency o r om i s s i o n in making an adverse credi b ility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes t hat an asylum applicant is not credible.” Wang v . Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original) (internal q uotat i o n m a r k s and citation o mitted); see § 1 158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Teboh has not shown that the evidence compels the conclusion that he was a credible witness. See Dayo v. Holder , 687 F.3d 653, 657-58 (5th Cir. 2012). Additionally, the BIA did not err regarding its determination that Te b o h failed to adequately support his testimony with corroborating evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). Accordingly, Teboh has not shown that the BIA erred in a f firming t he denial of hi s a p p l i cation for asylum. Teboh did not present a ny argument in the BIA challenging the denial of his claims for withholding or removal and relief under the C AT, a nd we therefore la c k jurisdiction to consider such challenges now. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Claudio v. Holder , 601 F.3d 316, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2010). The petition for review is DENIED.

2 Case: 12-60504 Document: 00512215625 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2013