
    Tra Bi JEAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70765.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 24, 2012.
    Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    
      Chief Counsel lee, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Elizabeth Do Kurlan, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tra Bi Jean, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency found Jean not credible based upon inconsistencies between his testimony, application, and declaration, including the circumstances of his detention by rebels and his escape to Ghana. Jean fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive adverse credibility determination. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues that are not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Jean’s asylum and withholding claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Jean’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and he does not point to any evidence that shows it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to the Ivory Coast, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.

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