
    Milad Gorgis JAMEEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74004.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 9, 2012.
    
    Filed July 11, 2012.
    Alexander Tucker, Esquire, Law Offices of Alexander Tucker, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Trial, OIL, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BENSON, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Dee V. Benson, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Utah, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Milad Gorgis Jameel, an ethnic Chaldean and native of Iraq, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal and denying his motion to remand after an immigration judge (IJ) found Jameel ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because of an adverse credibility determination. We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We look to the IJ’s decision because the BIA engaged in deferential review. See de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391, 393 (9th Cir.1997). The facts of this case are known to the parties. We need not repeat them here.

We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir.2010). Under pre-REAL ID Act law, we will accept an adverse credibility finding as long as the IJ identified one ground in making his ruling that is supported by substantial evidence which goes to the heart of the petitioner’s claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004).

Substantial evidence in the record supports the IJ’s finding of inconsistencies in Jameel’s account of the demands placed on his family by the dead man’s relatives. Jameel gave conflicting stories as to whether the man’s family demanded that they be given money, that they be given Jameel’s sister for marriage, that Jameel be killed, or some combination of the three. Jameel also waffled on whether or not the man’s family accepted the money when it was offered. Because this incident precipitated Jameel’s flight from Iraq and was central to his story, this discrepancy goes to the heart of his claim. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir.2006). And because Jameel cannot satisfy the lower burden of proof for an asylum claim, he necessarily cannot prevail on his withholding of removal claim. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

The BIA correctly upheld the IJ’s denial of Jameel’s CAT claim. Where, as here, a petitioner seeks CAT protection based upon allegations properly found to be not credible and does not identify any evidence the IJ failed to consider, he has not shown entitlement to relief. See id. at 1157.

Finally, the BIA properly denied Jam-eel’s motion to remand. We review such determinations for abuse of discretion. See Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir.2008); de Jesus Melen dez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir.2007). The additional submitted evidence does not establish a prima facie case of eligibility as required. See Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005). Jameel has presented some evidence that Christians occasionally face violence in Iraq, but no evidence that addresses the clear adverse credibility finding made against him by the IJ.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . The REAL ID Act is inapplicable to this case because Jameel filed his application on January 27, 2005, prior to the act’s May 11, 2005, effective date. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1021 n. 3 (9th Cir.2009).
     