
    Lala AHARONYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-74169.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 29, 2005.
    Lala Aharonyan, Glendale, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Gretchen M. Wolfinger, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lala Aharonyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, affirming the immigration judge’s (“U”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. Aharonyan failed to establish that the evidence compelled the reversal of the BIA’s findings where Aharonyan’s testimony was inconsistent and vague regarding the circumstances surrounding her own and her mother’s ethnic persecution and the date on which she fled from persecution. See id.; see also Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 724 (9th Cir.1997). Accordingly, Aharonyan’s asylum claim fails.

Because Aharonyan failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, she also failed to meet the higher burden under withholding of removal. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Because Aharonyan’s CAT claim is based on the same facts that were found not credible, substantial evidence also supports the denial of relief under CAT. See id. at 1156-57.

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.
     