Case Name: Mohammad RAHMAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-20
Citations: 671 F. App'x 635
Docket Number: No. 14-72622
Parties: Mohammad RAHMAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 635–635

Head Matter:
Mohammad RAHMAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72622
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 20, 2016
Reynold E. Finnegan, II, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Finnegan & Diba, Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner
Shahrzad Baghai, Attorney, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mohammad Rahman, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Rahman accepts the agency's determination that he was not credible, but challenges the denial of CAT protection. Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of Rahman's CAT claim, because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Rahman does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Bangladesh. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010). We reject Rahman's contention that the agency ignored evidence or erred in its analysis.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.