facts and conducted its own legal analysis applying the statute to those facts.

Under these circumstances, our jurisdiction is preserved. See Taslimi v. Holder,

590 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2010).

Turning to the substance of the timeliness issue, Banuve entered the United

States in 2003 but did not seek asylum until 2009. His asylum claim stems from an

incident in 2002 in which Josaia Bainimarama, then the commander of Fiji’s armed

forces, allegedly threatened to kill Banuve after Banuve accused Bainimarama of

involvement in the 2000 coup in Fiji. Banuve contends that his circumstances

changed in 2009 when Bainimarama, now prime minister, refused to hold

elections. We disagree. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination

that Banuve’s delay in applying for asylum was not reasonable because any

changed circumstances materialized following Bainimarama’s December 2006

coup. We therefore affirm the denial of Banuve’s asylum application as untimely.

With respect to his requests for withholding of removal and CAT relief,

Banuve challenges the adverse credibility determination underlying the denial of

that relief. “We must uphold an adverse credibility determination so long as even

3 16-72789 one basis is supported by substantial evidence.” Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837,

842 (9th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the findings

that (1) Banuve provided inconsistent testimony about whether he supported the

2000 coup and (2) documentary evidence conflicts with his assertion that he did

not support the coup.

Banuve does not challenge the denial of his withholding of removal or CAT

claims on any basis other than the adverse credibility determination. Any such

challenge is therefore waived. See Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 967 (9th

Cir. 2006).

PETITION DENIED.

4 16-72789