NOT FOR PUBLICATION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, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from 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 APPEALS
2 

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

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

jurisdiction 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 (9th Cir. 2009). Under this 

standard, we may reverse the BIA’s decision only 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 (9th 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 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Thus, “even 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 

determination.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th 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 there were multiple non-trivial inconsistencies between Nche’s testimony and 
3 

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

testimony and the medical record concerning the injuries he sustained from a 

beating following the September 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 thus, we 

are not “compelled to conclude” that the 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 entitled to 

protection under CAT, the denial of Nche’s applications 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.

PETITION DENIED.