
    Dolores ORRELLANA-BARRERA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76903.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2007.
    
      CAC — District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Susan K. Houser, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dolores Orrellana-Barrera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal.

Where, as here, the BIA affirms without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.

Because the inconsistencies within Orrellana-Barrera’s testimony regarding the date of his brother’s death, the dates of his employment with the military, and the places he lived in El Salvador during the relevant time, go to the heart of his asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of asylum based on an adverse credibility determination. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-64 (9th Cir.2004).

Because Orrellana-Barrera failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

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