
    Karapet Snbati MIRZAKHANYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70075.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Aug. 20, 2007.
    Artem M. Sarian, Esq., Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, for Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., David E. Dauenheimer, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Maria Hortensia Rios, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, Mark L. Gross, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Karapet Snbati Mirzakhanyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility determinations based on an inconsistency between petitioner’s testimony and application regarding a detention and interrogation, and an implausibility regarding his forced recruitment and deserter status. See id. at 1043-45.

Because petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the denial of relief under CAT. See id. at 1157.

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