
    Kulwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71572.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
    
    Decided Dec. 10, 2004.
    Virender Kumar Goswami, Law Offices of Virender K. Goswami, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Rena I. Curtis, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kulwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997), and deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because petitioner’s testimony was inconsistent with his interview before the asylum officer. Because the factual discrepancies went to the heart of his asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). It follows that Singh did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000).

Additionally, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial for relief under the CAT because Singh failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir.2001).

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), petitioner’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the stay of removal was continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     