Farook

MEMORANDUM **

Ahamed Haja Umar Farook (“Farook”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmation of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We review the IJ’s decision and affirm.

Although the IJ noted in passing that Farook’s testimony contained some *109 inconsistencies, there was no explicit credibility determination. See Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 658-59 (9th Cir. 2003). Taking Farook’s testimony as true, there is no evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that the men who attacked Farook were individuals that the Indian government was “unwilling or unable to control.” See Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1196 (9th Cir.2000). Nor is there evidence that compels the conclusion that he was beaten “on account of’ his affiliation with the Council for Adi-rai Promotion. Id.; see also Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 656-57 (9th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence therefore supports the IJ’s conclusion that Farook had failed to demonstrate past persecution.

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Farook failed to…