NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES ABORUNGONG, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72198 

Agency No. A201-683-235 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 5, 2021**

Anchorage, Alaska

Before: WARDLAW, MILLER, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Charles Aborungong petitions for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, 

* 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

AUG 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

and we deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.

1. Aborungong argues the agency improperly relied on his border 

interview in finding him not credible based on inconsistencies between his 

statements during that interview and his subsequent testimony. However, the 

totality of the circumstances indicates that Aborungong’s border interview was 

reliable. See In re J-C-H-F-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 211, 213 (B.I.A. 2018). Aborungong 

is a native English speaker, and the border interview was conducted in English 

without an interpreter. See Singh v. INS, 292 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002). The 

interview was transcribed, not merely summarized. See, e.g., Li v. Ashcroft, 378 

F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that transcription of border interview 

weighed in favor of reliability). And, while Aborungong asserts that he felt 

“rushed . . . to sign every page” of the transcript to confirm its accuracy and did not 

fully review the transcript before signing, he points to no evidence that the officer 

inaccurately transcribed the interview. Moreover, although Aborungong notes that 

the interview occurred at 4:00 a.m., the transcript contains no indication that 

Aborungong was too tired or confused to give accurate testimony. Finally, 

Aborungong swore to answer all questions truthfully during that interview, and he 

confirmed in his testimony to the IJ that he had “answered all the questions asked

[during the border interview] truthfully.”

2. Aborungong argues the agency’s adverse credibility determination is 
3 

unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The agency identified several 

discrepancies between Aborungong’s border interview and his testimony to the IJ 

regarding whether he returned home after the military came to his house, how 

many times he was interrogated and beaten in detention, what kinds of injuries he 

suffered, and the date of the protest that led to his arrest.

1

 Apart from disputing the 

reliability of the border interview, Aborungong does not challenge the agency’s 

reliance on any of these inconsistencies.

Aborungong does argue that the agency improperly relied on speculation in 

finding his account of the police waiting a month to search for him at his home 

after he escaped from custody implausible. However, we need not determine 

whether this finding was “a reasonable evaluation of the testimony and evidence 

based on common sense.” Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 2021 WL 2933340, at 

*10 (9th Cir. 2021). Even setting aside the agency’s findings on the plausibility of 

this aspect of Aborungong’s account, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

adverse credibility determination given the numerous inconsistencies in his 

testimony.

1 While the BIA recognized that the discrepancy regarding the date of the 

protest was “not a significant inconsistency” and would “not on its own support an 

adverse credibility determination,” it appropriately concluded that this 

inconsistency, “considered collectively” with the others, “depriv[ed] 

[Aborungong’s] claim of the requisite ring of truth.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 

1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
4 

3. Aborungong argues that country condition evidence compels the 

conclusion that he is entitled to CAT relief. However, Aborungong did not raise 

this argument to the BIA, and the BIA accordingly declined to reach the issue. 

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).

DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.