
    Ali SUKUNU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 06-71824.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Aug. 10, 2007.
    Filed Aug. 30, 2007.
    Mark B. Nerheim, Esq., Bauman-Beeia Law Group, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Karen Y. Stewart, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: HALL, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Ali Sukunu petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss in part and deny in part. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we do not recite them here.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the IJ’s determination that Sukunu failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he had filed his application within one year of his arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815-16 (9th Cir.2001). Sukunu’s appeal to the REAL ID Act fails because his appeal does not present a constitutional claim or a question of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We therefore dismiss this portion of his petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Sukunu was not credible because of material inconsistencies in his testimony, and that the documents Sukunu offered to support his claims were forgeries. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004); Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 955-56 (9th Cir.1999). As a result, the IJ properly found that Sukunu had failed to carry his burden of establishing eligibility for withholding or relief under the Convention Against Torture. We therefore deny these portions of his petition for review.

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