Pro se petitioner Li Shan Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision upholding the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) order of removal and the denial of his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. 1 After a thorough review of the record, we deny his petition in part and dismiss it in part.
I.
In 2007, Chen filed an aрplication for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on his wife’s forced sterilization. According to the aрplication, Chen and his wife had a son in 1987. The local family planning officials then forced Chen’s wife to have an IUD inserted. She later removed the IUD and, aftеr she gave birth to a daughter, she was forcibly sterilized and Chen was fined for violating the family planning policy. Chen left China in 2006 to “avoid future persecution of [his] family.”
Chеn supplemented his statement in 2008 to add a claim based on his own resistence to China’s family planning policies. Chen alleged that when the officials cаme to take his wife for insertion of the IUD, he tried to stop them, was beaten, taken into custody, and detained for seven days. He also suffered a cut to his hand when he was beaten by other detainees.
In support of his application, Chen submitted letters from his wife, a report from Amnesty International, and articlеs on China’s family planning policies. He also submitted untimely evidence in the form of medical reports and an unauthenticated detention certificate.
At the removal hearing, Chen testified that he cut his hand on a broken bowl while he was detained. The IJ found that Chen lacked credibility based on this discrepancy and inconsistencies in the other evidence. The IJ noted that the first letter from Chen’s wife made no mention of the 1987 incident, but a subsequent letter referred to Chen’s rеsistance. Additionally, the other evidence Chen submitted was untimely and unauthenticated.
The IJ further found that, even if Chen was credible, and that the harm he suffered constituted past persecution, Chen failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. On appeal, the BIA *964 issued its own opinion affirming the IJ’s findings and conclusions. The BIA explained that, even if Chen was credible, and even if the events rose to the level of past persecution such that Chen wаs entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, that presumption was rebutted by his twenty-year stay in China after the alleged persecution.
In his petition for review, Chen argues that (1) substantial evidence did not support the adverse credibility finding; (2) the BIA erred in alternatively finding that he failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of past persecution; and (3) he is entitled to CAT relief. We address each in turn.
II.
When the BIA issues its own opinion and does not adopt the IJ’s opinion, we review the BIA’s decision.
Shkambi v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
III.
An adverse credibility finding must be “clean” and supported by “specific, cogent reasons.”
Shkambi,
In this case, the BIA set forth specific, cogent reasons for the adverse credibility finding. Chеn failed to include the 1987 incident in his initial application, and he was later unable to consistently recall its details. Although Chen attempted to explain these inconsistencies through others’ unsworn statements, these explanations did not compel the BIA to find him credible. Moreover, the BIA evaluated all of the evidence submitted and found that the documents contained therein, many of which were of questionable authenticity, were insufficient to rehabilitate Chen’s inсredible testimony. We cannot conclude that the adverse credibility finding is unsupported by substantial evidence.
IV.
In order to qualify for asylum, the applicant must еstablish: “(1) past persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground or (2) a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground.”
Mehmeti v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
A showing of past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
An applicant may also establish a well-founded fear of persecution without proving past persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2);
Kazemzadeh,
Even if we were to assume, as the BIA did, that Chen was credible and that the harm amounted to past persecution, the agency rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear in light of the nearly 20 years that had elapsed between that harm and Chen’s departure from China without further incident. Chen was unable to offer any other basis for his claim of a well-founded fear, and he submitted no evidence that Chinese officials had any present interest in him. Accordingly, substantial evidence supported the BIA’s alternative conclusion that Chen could not establish eligibility for either asylum or, by extensiоn, withholding of removal. We therefore deny Chen’s petition on this ground.
V.
Finally, we will not consider Chen’s CAT claim because he failed to raise this claim before the BIA. Thus, it is unexhausted and we lack jurisdiction to address its merits.
See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
Notes
. Although he is proceeding pro se before this court, Chen was assisted by counsel during his removal proсeedings.
. The BIA’s interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference as long as it is "reasonable” — as opposed to "plainly erroneоus” — and not inconsistent with the will of Congress or the text of the regulation itself.
Auer v. Robbins,