NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUTHER NCHE,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 73139

Agency No. A201

- 436

- 818

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 16, 2020 * * Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges, and ENGLAND, ** * District Judge.

Luther Nche , a citizen and native of Cameroon, pet itions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal fro m the

* 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).

*** The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

DEC 2 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

juris diction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition

. We review adverse credibility findings under the substantial evidence

standard. Soto

- Olarte v. Holder , 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9 th Cir. 2009). Under this
standard, we may reverse the BIA’s decision on ly if the petitioner presents
evidence that is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find that he was

not credible.” Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9 th Cir. 2003) (internal

quotation marks omitted).
Under the REAL ID Act, “[i]nconsistencies no longer need to ‘go to the
heart’ of the petitioner’s claim to form the basis of an adverse credibility

determination.” Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9 th Cir. 2010) (citing

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Thus, “ e ven minor inconsistencies

. . . may, when

considered collectively, deprive [the] claim of the requisite ring of truth, thereby
supplying substantial evidence that will sustain the IJ’s adverse credibility

determinatio n.” Rizk v. Holder , 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9 th Cir. 2011) (internal

quotation marks omitted ).

Substantial evidence supports the denial of relief on adverse credibility

grounds due to inconsistencies in the record. The IJ found, and the BIA affirmed,

that t here were multiple non

- trivial inconsistencies between Nche’s testimony and3

documentary evidence. Specifically, the IJ identified conflicts between Nche’s

testimony and the medical re cord concerning the injuries he sustained from a

beating following the S eptember 24, 2018, meeting , and whether the police,

military, or a mixed force had attacked him . Taken together, these inconsistencies
support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding under the REAL ID Act , and t hus, we
are not “compelled to conclude” that th e IJ’s credibility determination was

erroneous. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Because the IJ’s credibility finding was

supported by substantial evidence and because the record does not contain

sufficient independent, objective evidence to establish Nche is e ntitled to

protection under CAT
, the denial of Nche’s application s for relief was proper

. See

Farah , 348 F.3d at 1156

– 57 ; Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1048

– 49

. Nche’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED as

moot. The temporary stay of removal will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

P ETITION DENIED

.