T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R I C HA R D A DE NI R AN AD E OG B A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 73675 A ge nc yN o. A 022- 940- 785 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an d B Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R i ch ard A d en i ran A d eo g b a, a n at i v e an d ci t i zen o f N i g eri a, p et i t i o n s p ro se f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f orr e l i e f unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C § 1252 

# FI LED MA R 24 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS06- 73675 2 a nd L em us-G alvan v. Mukasey , 51 8 F . 3d 10 81 , 10 82 -83 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( thi s c ou rt re t ai ns j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew a c l ai m un der C A T no tw i thst andi ng thata pet i t i on er has bee n o rder ed re m ov ed base d o n an agg ra vat ed fe l on y c on vi ct i on ). W e r evi ew f o rs u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e th e a g e n c y ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityf in d in g s , Farah v. A s h c r o ft , 348 F . 3d 1153, 1156 ( 9th C i r . 2003) , a nd w e r e vi e w de novo c o n s titu tio n a l d u e p r o c e s s c h a lle n g e s , C i na pi an v. H

older , 567 F . 3d 1067, 1073 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng be c aus e a l though A de ogbat e s t i f i e d tha the w orke d a s aj ourna l i s ti n N i ge r i a , he h ad p rev i o u sl y cl ai m ed d u ri n g cri m i n al p ro ceed i n g s th ath e w as trai n ed as a c o m p u te rp r o g r a m m e ra n d w o rk e d a s ac o m p u te rs y s te m a n a ly s t in N ig e r ia . T h is di sc re pancy goes t o the heartof hi s c l ai m because A deog ba cont ends thathe w as t ortur e d i n the pa s ta nd w i l l be s ubj e c t e d t o t ortur e i f r e turne d t o N i ge r i abe c aus e of h is w o rka s ajo u rn a lis t o p p o s in g th e g o v e rn m e n t. Se e L i v . A s h c r o ft, 378 F . 3d 959, 962 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( a s l ong a s one of the i de nt i f

i e d gr ounds i s s upport e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e a nd goe s t o the he a rtof the c l a i m , w e a r e bound t o a c c e ptthe a g e n c y ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityf in d in g ) . C on traryt o A deog ba’ s c on t ent i on , the agency had autho ri ty t o m ake an a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityf

in d in g . See Stew art

v. U ni ted Stat es , 366 U . S . 1, 6 n. 13 ( 1961)06- 73675 3 ( not i ng tha t“ w he ne ve raw i tne s s t a ke s the s t a nd, he ne c e s s a r i l yput s the g e n u in e n e s s o f

h is d e m e a n o rin to is s u e ,” b e c au s e th e w itn e s s ’s “c r e d ib ilityis in i s s ue w he ne ve rhe t e s t i f i e s ” ) . A l s o c ontr a ryt o A de ogba ’ s c ont e nt i on, the r e i s no i n d i cat i o n th atth e ag en cy ap p l i ed th e R E A L ID A cti n m ak i n g th e ad v erse c r e di bi l i tyf

i ndi ng. A deog ba’ s r em ov al t o N i geri a w i l l no tvi ol at e C A T . T he do cum ent ary c ountryc ondi t i ons e vi de nc e doe s notc om pe l the c onc l us i on tha the w oul d be t o rtu red b y o r atth e acq u i escen ce o f th e N i g eri an g o v ern m en tb ecau se th e ad v erse c r e d ib ilityf

in d in g g o e s d ir e c tlyto th e r e a s o n h e c o n te n d s h e w o u ld b e to rtu r e d . See A lm ag hzar v. G on zales , 45 7 F . 3d 91 5, 92 2-23 (9th C i r. 20 06 ) ( do cum ent ary evi dence of hum an ri gh t s abu se s i n Y em en do es no tcom pel concl usi on that pet i t i on eri s e nt i t l ed t o C A T re l i ef w here pet i t i on erhas bee n fou nd no tcr edi bl e) . A d e o g b a ’s d u e p r o c e s s c o n te n tio n f a ils b e c au s e th e a g e n c yd id n o t c o m m it e rr o rin a d d r e s s in g h is c r e d ib ility . Se e La ta v . I NS , 20 4 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 46 (9th C i r. 20 00 ) ( re qu i ri ng error t o p re vai l on a due process cl ai m ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.