religion. We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) finding that Petitioner was not credible. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010) (explaining standard of review for credibility findings under the REAL ID Act). The BIA identified two examples of non-trivial inconsistent testimony, including testimony regarding why Petitioner required a friend’s help to obtain a passport and whether his mother attended a home church. Petitioner was alerted to his change in testimony and had a chance to explain the inconsistencies, but failed to do so. 2. The immigration judge did not abuse his discretion by excluding documentary evidence offered by Petitioner. See Vatyan v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Because the only source of authentication for
recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard holding that we review for abuse of discretion a decision to exclude a document for lack of authentication holding a trial courts decision involving withdrawal or discharge of counsel is subject to review for abuse of discretion holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony