Kabir Sarowar Matubbar v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KABIR SAROWAR MATUBBAR,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-73020
Agency No. A206-271-851
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Kabir Sarowar Matubbar, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, 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 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
SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-73020
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 between Matubbar’s testimony and asylum application as
to the dates he lived in South Africa, and inconsistencies between Matubbar’s
testimony, declaration, and documentary evidence as to whether he was in
Bangladesh when he was allegedly beaten in December 2013. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances). Matubbar’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of
credible testimony, in this case, Matubbar’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Matubbar’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
the agency found not credible, and Matubbar does not point to any other evidence
in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-73020
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Bangladesh.
Id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --