Case Name: Leonard MALAJ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-18
Citations: 228 F. App'x 716
Docket Number: No. 05-72174
Parties: Leonard MALAJ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 716–717

Head Matter:
Leonard MALAJ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72174.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 18, 2007.
Leonard Malaj, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Carol Federighi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Andrew Gentin, Esq., Office of International Affairs Crim Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Leonard Malaj, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an 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. We review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination based on the submission of potentially fraudulent documents, inconsistencies within petitioner's testimony, his evasive and nonresponsive demeanor, and a failure to provide corroboration. See id. at 1043-45.
Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he is eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of relief under CAT. See id. at 1157.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.