
    Gurdip SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72977.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 12, 2004.
    
    Decided April 26, 2004.
    Alexandra A. Cristea, Downey, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Michael T. Dougherty, David Dauenheimer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gurdip Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming a decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s adverse credibility determination under the substantial evidence standard. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition.

The IJ found Singh’s story implausible and identified material inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and written documentation submitted in support of his asylum application. Because these inconsistencies concern Singh’s arrest and harassment by the Punjab police, they “go to the heart” of Singh’s claim for asylum and constitute substantial evidence supporting the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. See id. Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 971 (9th Cir.1998).

We reject Singh’s contention that the IJ did not adequately review his request for relief under the CAT. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returns to India. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1282-83 (9th Cir.2001).

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004) petitioner’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the motion for stay of removal was granted, or continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tune, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

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.
     