Samuel Munanu v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL MUTHONDU MUNANU, No. 11-73429
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-315-969
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Muthondu Munanu, a native and citizen of Kenya, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
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 significant inconsistencies both within Munamu’s testimony, and
between his testimony and written statement, regarding when he fled his
hometown. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable
under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard). The agency
reasonably rejected Munamu’s explanations for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v.
Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible
testimony, Munanu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Munanu’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that
shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Kenya. See id.
at 1156-57. We reject his contention that the agency’s analysis is insufficient.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-73429