
    Yam Bahadur SHREESH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73664.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 1, 2015.
    Filed June 17, 2015.
    Brian James Dunne, Esquire, Olavi Dunne LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner. .
    Ethan B. Kanter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey Lawrence Menkin, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges and MARQUEZ, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Rosemary Marquez, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yam Bahadur Shreesh petitions for review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the denial of Mr. Shreesh’s application on the basis of an adverse credibility determination and a finding that Mr. Shreesh had provided material support to a designated terrorist organization. The government concedes that the BIA’s material support bar determination is erroneous because, at the time Mr. Shreesh provided money to the Maoists, the Maoist's had not yet been designated as a terrorist organization. The BIA’s adverse credibility determination, however, is supported by substantial evidence. Under the substantial evidence standard, the BIA’s credibility determination is “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.2011); Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir.2009). Mr. Shreesh failed to produce evidence which would compel a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the BIA did not have grounds for an adverse credibility determination based on (1) Mr. Shreesh’s demeanor when testifying and (2) doubts raised by the hospital report submitted by Mr. Shreesh in support of his application.

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