
    Amandeep KAUR, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70442.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 20, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 26, 2015.
    Daniela Ramona Razawi, Esq., Law Office of Daniela R. Razawi, Lincoln, CA, for Petitioner.
    Linda Y. Cheng, OIL, Daniel Shieh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: D.W. NELSON, CLIFTON, and N.R. 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

Amandeep Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Conventions Against Torture (CAT), adjustment of status, and voluntary departure. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part arid deny in part the petition for review.

The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994). Thus, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA. Moreno-Morante v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.2007).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that petitioner’s asylum application was not filed within one year of her arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Although the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), restored our jurisdiction over constitutional and legal questions previously barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), petitioner has failed to raise any questions of law or constitutional claims on appeal. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2008); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 648 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam).

The BIA properly affirmed the IJ’s denial of petitioner’s claims for withholding of removal and for protection under CAT based on the IJ’s adverse credibility findings. The Real ID Act does not apply to Kaur’s petition, Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 n. 1 (9th Cir.2005), but a review of the IJ’s decision demonstrates that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility findings and that inconsistencies in petitioner’s testimony go to the heart of her claims, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004).

The BIA also properly affirmed the IJ’s rulings that petitioner was not eligible for adjustment of status based on her failure to prove that she was inspected and admitted when she entered the United States or the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative for a waiver of inadmissibility. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     