Case Name: Noorul Ameen Mohamed SULTHAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-27
Citations: 237 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 04-71386
Parties: Noorul Ameen Mohamed SULTHAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 237
Pages: 296–296

Head Matter:
Noorul Ameen Mohamed SULTHAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71386.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2007.
Filed June 27, 2007.
Charles E. Nichol, Esq., Law Office of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Margot L. Nadel, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Sarah E. Harrington, Esq., Karen L. Stevens, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge's ("IJ") adverse credibility determination. Sulthan's testimony revealed inconsistencies regarding both how many men attacked him in Bangalore and whether or not he ever received any threats in writing. Both inconsistencies go to the heart of his claim. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that inconsistent details about the event that forms the basis for the claim can support an adverse credibility finding).
Because Sulthan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he also failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Sulthan waived the IJ's denial of his CAT claim because he failed to raise the issue in his opening brief. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.