
    Kulvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73260.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 10, 2004.
    
    Decided May 18, 2004.
    Earle A. Sylva, Esq., Rai Law & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Efthimia S. Pilitsis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kulvir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility finding and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Singh’s testimony was both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with his declaration, and contained implausibilities. 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).

To the extent that Singh contends he is entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture, we lack jurisdiction to address it because Singh failed to exhaust this issue. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

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.
     