Case Name: Jamal O. FARAH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-08
Citations: 123 F. App'x 821
Docket Number: No. 03-71776
Parties: Jamal O. FARAH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and SAND, Senior Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 821–822

Head Matter:
Jamal O. FARAH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71776.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 15, 2005.
Decided March 8, 2005.
Frank M. Tse, Law Office of Frank M.K. Tse, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, William C. Peachey, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and SAND, Senior Judge.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The Honorable Leonard B. Sand, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Jamal Farah challenges the Board of Immigration Appeal's affirmance without opinion of the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding and denial of asylum relief, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Farah's claims fail because substantial evidence supports the immigration judge's determination that Farah was not credible. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining the standard for reviewing credibility findings).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.