Munkhbayar Puuree v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUNKHBAYAR PUUREE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73974
Agency No. A088-120-338
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Munkhbayar Puuree, a native and citizen of Mongolia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
APR 11 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omission from Puuree’s declaration of death threats by his former
employer and a police inspector, and the inconsistencies and omissions regarding
the police threats to Puuree’s father after Puuree departed Mongolia. See id. at
1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of
circumstances). Puuree’s explanations, including translation errors, do not compel
a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Further,
we reject Puuree’s contention that the agency failed to consider his explanations
for the inconsistencies and omissions. In the absence of credible testimony,
Puuree’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Puuree’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
statements found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the
record to compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
12-73974 2

-- 2 of 3 --

or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Mongolia. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73974 3

-- 3 of 3 --