IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

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 native and citizen of Cameroon, has filed a petition for

review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the

denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In affirming the denial of asylum,

the BIA concluded that the immigration judge (IJ) did not err in finding that

Teboh was not credible as a witness and that the IJ was reasonable in expecting

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 22, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

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

Teboh to corroborate the factual bases for his claim with statements from his

immediate family members in Cameroon.

Teboh challenges those conclusions, asserting that he testified consistently

about the facts regarding his persecution and that his testimony was sufficiently

corroborated. Teboh also asserts that the IJ made irrational assumptions about

his ability to gather documents from family members in Cameroon and that the

BIA erred in requiring specific corroborating evidence. The BIA’s decision to

uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is reviewed under the

substantial evidence standard. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511,

518 (5th Cir. 2012).

While Teboh discusses the parts of his testimony that were consistent, he

does not specifically address any of the numerous inconsistencies cited by the IJ

and BIA. “[A]n IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an

adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances

establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d

531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted); see § 1158(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 Teboh 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 affirming the denial of his application for

asylum.

Teboh did not present any argument in the BIA challenging the denial of

his claims for withholding or removal and relief under the CAT, and we therefore

lack 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