
    CHANGRONG HE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71424.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 5, 2010.
    Filed Oct. 15, 2010.
    Wei Vicky Wang, Esquire, Law Offices of Wei Vicky Wang, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Robb C. Adkins, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Dorothy Schouten, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Changrong He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which summarily affirmed the finding of the immigration judge (“IJ”) that petitioner was not credible. We deny the petition.

The Court reviews the IJ’s decision when the BIA affirms the IJ without an opinion of its own. See Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). The IJ’s credibility determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence, Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir.2010), and may be reversed only if the evidence petitioner presented was “so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could find that [petitioner] was not credible.” Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it....”). In this pre-REAL ID Act case, so long as one of the grounds the IJ identified in support of the adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of petitioner’s claim of persecution, the adverse credibility finding will be upheld. See Cortez-Pineda, 610 F.3d at 1124 (citing Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004)).

In this case, the IJ primarily based his adverse credibility finding on petitioner’s omission from her asylum application that she was employed in China by Voice of Asia, a car audio company, and that petitioner had come to the United States on Voice of Asia’s behalf to conduct business with a company called Clarion. This omission calls into question whether petitioner experienced the persecution she alleged the Chinese government perpetrated against her, and thus goes to the heart of petitioner’s claim of persecution. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and the evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion.

Because at least one of the grounds the IJ identified in support of his adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence and went to the heart of petitioner’s claim of persecution, the petition is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     