
    Kaser SINGH, aka Kaser Ram, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-74522.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
    Earle A. Sylva, Esq., Rai Law & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Sendee, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA Luis E. Perez, Esq., Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kaser Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen and remand to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and review a denial of asylum and withholding for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Singh’s inconsistent testimony regarding whether he was burned with a hot iron rod or struck with a bamboo stick went to the heart of his asylum and withholding claims. See Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043.

The BIA properly denied Singh’s motion to reopen for CAT relief because he did not make a prima facie showing of eligibility. See Cano-Merida, 311 F.3d at 966.

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.
     