John Doe v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN DOE,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73288
Agency No. A096-411-651
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016 **
San Francisco, California
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
John Doe, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for adjustment of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-73288
status, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
Doe challenges the agency’s denial of his application for adjustment of
status on the basis that he failed to establish the bona fides of his marriage, but
does not challenge the agency’s alternative denial of his application as a matter of
discretion. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of
Doe’s application for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i);
Hosseini v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on discrepancies in the record about whether Doe was in Cameroon at the
time of his father’s death. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1047 (“Although
inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an
inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). In the
absence of credible testimony, Doe’s withholding of removal claim fails. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Doe’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-73288
agency found not credible, and he 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 if returned to Cameroon. See id. at 1156-57. We reject Doe’s contention
that the BIA did not independently examine the record in evaluating his CAT
claim, and we lack jurisdiction to consider Doe’s claim that the IJ’s analysis of his
CAT claim was incomplete. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th
Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not presented below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part

-- 3 of 3 --