
    Wendy EFFENDY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70154.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 22, 2010.
    
      Houman Varzandeh, Esq., VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wendy Effendy, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Effendy established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the delay in filing his asylum application beyond the one-year deadline. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Effendy’s asylum claim.

Based on the different names, birth dates, and places of birth that Effendy presented in his Indonesian passports and in his child’s birth certificate, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) (upholding adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies went to key elements of the asylum claim, including identity); Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000) (“At the very least, the record does not compel the opposite conclusion.”). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Effendy’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Fatah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Effendy fails to raise any substantive challenge to the denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     