
    Iryna DUNETS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71205.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Nov. 30, 2009.
    Reynold E. Finnegan, II, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Finnegan & Diba A. Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, Trial, OIL, John D. Williams, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    
      Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Iryna Dunets, a native of the former Soviet Union and a citizen of Belarus, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252. We review for substantial evidence adverse credibility findings, Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Dunets’ testimony and declaration were inconsistent regarding the mistreatment her father suffered while in detention following Dunets’ disclosure of the kidnaping scheme, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001) (inconsistencies about the events leading up to applicant’s departure can form the basis of an adverse credibility determination), and the IJ reasonably found Dunets’ explanations for the discrepancies unconvincing, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir.2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Dunets failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or 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.
     