Asfak Ahmed Choyon v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASFAK AHMED CHOYON,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73151
Agency No. A208-118-587
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Asfak Ahmed Choyon, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions pro se
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
* 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).
FILED
APR 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73151
have 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 inconsistencies as to when suspected political rivals chased Choyon on a
motorbike and threatened his family, whether he reported this alleged mistreatment
to police, and his residences in Bangladesh. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). We reject
Choyon’s contention that the agency did not consider his case or ignored evidence.
In the absence of credible testimony, Choyon’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Choyon’s
CAT claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the
record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not Choyon
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Bangladesh. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --