
    Gurdeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70022. Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.
    
    Decided Feb. 16, 2005.
    Randhir S. Kang, Esq., Law Office of Randhir S. Kang, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA; and Alison Marie Igoe, Esq., Cindy S. Ferrier, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gurdeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“U”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003). We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because, among other things: (1) Singh testified that he was politically active but could not remember the dates of any elections he had worked on or the names of the candidates; (2) Singh testified inconsistently regarding whether he ever returned to his village after he was arrested in August 1994; and (3) in his asylum application, Singh stated that he was released after the militants who killed the police superintendent’s son were captured, but, at the hearing, he testified he never learned whether the murderers were found. See id. at 1043.

Singh’s challenges to the BIA’s use of the streamlining procedure in his asylum case are without merit. See Garcia-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 1066, 1078-79 (9th Cir.2004); Falcon Carriche, 350 F.3d at 854-55.

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.
     