NOT FOR PUBLICATION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) de cision 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 APPEALS2

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, t he totality of the circumstanc es 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). T he 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 a nd did not fully review the transcript before signing , he points to no evidence that the officer inaccurately transcribed the interview. Mo reover, 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 tha t 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 is3

unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The agency identified several
d iscrepancies 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, su bstantial 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 a dverse credibility determination,” it appropriately concluded that this inconsistency, “considered collectively” with the other s , “depriv[ ed ] [Aborungong’s] claim o f 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, Aborun gong 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 A ND DISMISSED IN PART.