
    Mikhail Igorevich SAVIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75015.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.*
    Filed April 14, 2010.
    
      Lena Nevsky, Esq., Wyckoff, NJ, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Mikhail Igorevich Savin, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s adverse credibility finding. Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.

Savin alleges that he was hospitalized for one month after police beat and tortured him. The BIA found Savin not credible based on a government report that stated the surgery department of the emergency center was closed at the time of Savin’s alleged injuries and it did not operate on, or treat anyone with his alleged diagnosis. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination because the credibility of Savin’s alleged injuries and treatment go to the heart of his claim. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004). We decline to consider Savin’s argument that the IJ misinterpreted the report because he did not raise this argument before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004). In the absence of credible testimony, Savin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Because Savin’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not credible, and he points to no evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured in Uzbekistan, his CAT claim also fails. Id. at 1156-57.

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