
    Nikolin LLORDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74282.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 10, 2012.
    
    Filed July 12, 2012.
    Judith L. Wood, Esquire, Law Offices of Judith L. Wood, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Terri Jane Scadron, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BENSON, District Judge.
    
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Dee V. Benson, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Utah, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner, Nikolin Llordi, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal under both § 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16-1208.18 (2007), and voluntary departure.

1. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Petitioner’s challenge to the BIA’s determination that his application was untimely because that issue involves disputed facts. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D); Hakopian v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir.2008).

2. We deny the petition as to withholding of removal and protection under CAT because the adverse credibility findings are supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner filed his application for asylum before May 11, 2005, so we apply the pre-REAL ID Act rules. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 n. 2 (9th Cir.2011).

“We must uphold the I J’s adverse credibility determination so long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the alien’s claim of persecution.” Id. at 1087. To reverse the factual findings, “the evidence must compel a different conclusion from the one reached by the BIA.” Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir.2011). Here the IJ relied on numerous inconsistencies between Petitioner’s application and his testimony at the hearing. The inconsistencies as to Petitioner’s date of entry, his father’s arrests, and his political activity in Albania are supported by the record. These issues go to the heart of Petitioner’s claim. Petitioner has failed to show a “clear probability” that his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his “membership in a particular social group or political opinion,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); thus he is not entitled to withholding of removal.

Nor has he met his burden for withholding of removal under CAT as he has failed to show that it is “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if he returns to Albania, or that such torture would occur “with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1).

3. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Petitioner’s challenge to the denial of voluntary removal because that claim was not exhausted before the BIA. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004).

Petition is DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part. 
      
       xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     