
    Mofizur RAHMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70867.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2011.
    
      Garish Sarin, Esquire, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jeffery R. Leist, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mofizur Rahman, native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Rahman does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his application for asylum was untimely. Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on both the inconsistencies between Rahman’s asylum application and his testimony regarding the nature of the August 1991 incident, and on Rahman’s lack of detail regarding his injuries. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). We do not consider Rah-man’s contentions that the IJ did not have him swear to his asylum application and that the IJ failed to consider his corroborating evidence, because he failed to exhaust them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Rahman’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Rahman has not established that any torture he may suffer would be by or with the acquiescence of the Bangladesh government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

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