
    Satnam SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70465.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
    Robert B. Jobe, Esq., Law Office of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Satnam Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application of asylum and withholding of removal. We dismiss in part, and deny in part.

The IJ dismissed Singh’s asylum claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2), which requires that the asylum application be filed within one year of the applicant’s arrival in the United States. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination under this section. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir .2002).

We have jurisdiction to review the denial of withholding of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Id. We review for substantial evidence the adverse credibility finding of the IJ. He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 595 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Singh’s testimony was contradictory and contained implausibilities. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151-52 (9th Cir.1999). Because the factual discrepancies went to the heart of his asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding and CAT relief. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).

The request for attorneys fees is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part. 
      
       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.
     