NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMMANUEL CHIGOZIE NNAJI,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 10

- 73830 Agency No. A094

- 811

- 051

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 14, 2019 ** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Emmanuel Chigozie Nnaji (“Nnaji” ) , a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitio ns for review of t he Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“ Board ” ) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ” ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under t he Convention Against Torture (“CAT” )

.

* 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

MAR 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

N naji claims he i s eligib le for relief because he has been persecuted by Muslims in his home country of Nigeria because he is a Christian. “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with and incorporates specific findi ngs of
the IJ while adding its own reasoning, we r eview both decisions.” Bhattarai v. Lynch , 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we affirm.
W e review de novo Board interpret ations of legal questions

. Zheng v. Ashcroft , 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003). Nnaji’ s asylum application was untimely, submitted about four years after arriving to the United States as opposed to within one year of arrival, as required. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). There were no “changed” or “extraordinary circumstances” excusing his delay. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Nnaji’s argument that he wa s ignorant of the asylum system does not amount to either changed or extraordinary circumstances excusing an untimely filing of an asylum applicat ion

. See Antonio

- Martinez v. INS , 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003)

. Additionally, his excuse of post

- traumatic stress or trauma, raised for the first time before this court, is not exhausted and therefore
we la ck jurisdiction to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (d)(1)

. Even if Nnaji had established extraordinary circumstances that excused his untimely asylum application, substa ntial evidence supports the Board’s affirmance of the IJ’ s adverse credibility de termination. We review for substantial evidence3

decisions by the Board denying eligibility for withholding of removal and adverse credibility determinations, Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) , and uphold the Board’ s adverse credibility det ermination unless we determine “that ‘ any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to co nclude’ that [petitioner] is credible.” Rizk v. Holder , 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9t h Cir. 2011) ( quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) ). The evidence in the record does not compel a positive c redibility
determination

. The Board permissibly relied on numerou s inconsistencies between Nnaji’ s declaration and his testimony

. Some of Nnaji’ s inconsistencies go to the heart of his claim that when he was living in Nigeria, he was mistreated and attacked by Muslims because he is Christi an, including an inconsistency about an alleged riot and attack he suffered. Inconsistencies that strike at the heart of one’ s claim go above and beyond the requirements for making an adverse credibility
determination after the enactment of the REAL ID Ac t of 2005. Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1043 ( after the REAL ID Act, “ an IJ may consider any inconsistency ” when assessing credibility, not only those that “‘go to the heart’ of the petitioner’ s claim” ) (emphasis in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii i)). The IJ also
based the adverse credibilit y determination on Nnaji’ s demeanor, specifically that he “appeared very calm and cool” when describing events that he claimed were traumatic, including his mother’ s death and other traumatic events he claims he4

experienced. As required, t he IJ considered Nnaji’ s explanations for the perceived
inconsistences and did not find that they were persuasive. See Shrestha , 590 F.3d

at 1044. Nnaji’s argument that the IJ “acted in a biased ma nner” because the IJ’ s adverse credibil ity determination was based on “speculation and conjecture” is contradicted by the IJ’ s thorough review of the evidence and consider ation of Nnaji’ s explanations. Thu s, the IJ did not violate Nnaji’ s due process righ ts. Additionally, the Board did not err in concluding that the IJ properly determined that Nnaji failed to present reasonably obtainable corroborating
evidence. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 2009) (an applicant

“ can be turned down for failing to provide corroboration where he does have i t or could reasonably obtain it” ). For example, as the IJ noted, Nnaji has relatives in the United States who “ he t estified knows about his story,” but they did not appear in court or provide d eclarations supporting Nnaji ’ s claims. In sum, substan tial evidence supported the Board’s denial of Nnaji’ s asylum application. Nnaji necessarily failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal, which has a higher standard than asylum and, here , was based on the
same claims and evidence. Al

- Harbi v. INS , 242 F.3d 882, 888

– 89 (9th Cir. 2001)

. We also review for substantial evidence Board determinations denying eligibility for protection under CAT. Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1048. S ubsta ntial5

eviden ce supported the Board’ s denial of Nnaji’ s CAT application because he did not show it is “more likely than not” that he would be tort ured in the country of removal “ by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c )(2); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). Neither the count ry condition evidence nor Nnaji’ s testimony met this burden. The petition for review is DENIED

.