Felix Oghenakogie Obidah v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIX OGHENAKOGIE OBIDAH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-74092
Agency No. A089-703-446
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Felix Oghenakogie Obidah, a native and citizen of Nigeria, 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
JUN 18 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Obidah claims Muslim extremists menaced and attacked him on account of
his Christian religion, and police arrested and beat him on account of his political
activity. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on Obidah’s omission of, and subsequent inconsistent
testimony regarding, his return to Nigeria in November 2006 shortly after fleeing
the country, and the inconsistencies between Obidah’s testimony and written
declaration regarding his political activities. See id. at 1045-48 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the
circumstances” standard). The agency reasonably rejected Obidah’s explanations
for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.
2007). We reject Obidah’s contention that the BIA failed to take into account the
testimony of Obidah’s son. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96
(9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Obidah’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
2 12-74092

-- 2 of 3 --

Obidah’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 Nigeria. See id. at 1156-
57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-74092

-- 3 of 3 --