
    Vardan ADAMYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75169.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
    Vardan Adamyan, Pasadena, CA, pro se.
    Jesse Bless, Anthony C. Payne, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vardan Adamyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.2007), and we review de novo constitutional claims, Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274-75 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that there were material inconsistencies and omissions between Adamyan’s testimony and asylum application regarding when, why, and where the police arrested him. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004) (“An adverse credibility ruling will be upheld so long as identified inconsistencies go to the heart of [the] asylum claim.”) (citation and internal quotation omitted); Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003). In the absence of credible testimony, Adamyan failed to establish he is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Adamyan failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured in Armenia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

Finally, we deny Adamyan’s due process contention because he failed to demonstrate prejudice in the IJ’s handling of the hearing. See Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.1999) (due process challenges require a showing of prejudice to succeed).

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