
    Ganesh Prasad POKHAREL, aka Ganesh Kumar Pokharel, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72682.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 9, 2014.
    
    Filed April 17, 2014.
    Maleeha Haq, Rai & Associate, Hardeep Singh Rai, Hardeep S. Rai, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Seeurity, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Lindsay Williams Zimliki, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, Senior 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 Robert W. Pratt, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Ganesh Pokharel, a native and citizen of Nepal, appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.8d 1149, 1152-54 (9th Cir.2014). Pokharel provided inconsistent dates for two events that formed the basis of his claim: his five-day detention by the Maoists and his wife’s receipt of a threatening letter. Further, Pokharel had difficulty recalling the dates of events when asked about them out of chronological order, supporting the conclusion that his testimony seemed memorized. Pokharel was given the opportunity to explain inconsistencies and was represented by counsel. He testified through an interpreter, but the record does not establish that any of Pokharel’s difficulty recalling the dates of events was the result of translation problems.

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