
    Waqqas Hamid KHAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Waqqas Hamid Khan, Petitioner, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 06-70302, 07-71153.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 4, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 19, 2010.
    Manpreet Singh Gahra, Law Office of Manpreet Singh Gahra, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, OIL, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

We review two decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals: one affirming the denial of Waqqas Hamid Kharis application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and the second denying Kharis motion to reopen, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7).

The Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s finding that Khan failed to establish a clear probability of persecution due to his inconsistent account and discrepancies in supporting documentation. The Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence, including discrepancies between Kharis oral and written testimony. Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). The Board therefore did not err in affirming the denial of Kharis application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The Board also did not abuse its discretion in denying Kharis motion to reopen, which was untimely. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). The 90-day deadline can be equitably tolled by a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003). To prevail, Khan must show resulting prejudice by demonstrating how the outcome of the proceedings might have been affected. Munoz v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir.2003).

Khan failed to show prejudice resulting from ineffective assistance of counsel. Khan asserts that counsel should have arranged for his father’s appearance as a witness, but failed to explain how his father’s testimony would have affected the outcome, given other discrepancies in his documentation and testimony. Khan therefore failed to show prejudice resulting from his father’s nonappearance as a witness or other behavior by counsel.

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