
    Silvia Petkova STOYANOVA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70934.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
    
    Filed Jan. 28, 2008.
    Elena E. Tsiprin, Esq., Law Offices of Elena E. Tsiprin, Bellevue, WA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Kevin Conway, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Silvia Petkova Stoyanova, and her minor son, Brislav Atanasov Stoyanova, are natives and citizens of Bulgaria. They petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“U”) denial of their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction over petitioners’ claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s and BIA’s denial of petitioners’ claims on the basis of an adverse credibility finding. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility determinations, because Stoyanova submitted a fraudulent medical report that went to the heart of her claim, and the record as a whole supported an adverse credibility finding. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004).

Because they failed to establish eligibility for asylum, petitioners necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

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