
    Santano Pio FERNANDES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75194.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
    Manpreet Singh Gahra, Law Office of Manpreet Singh Gahra, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jaesa Woods McLin Fax, DOJ-U.S. Department Of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Santano Pio Férnandes, 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 decision denying Fernandes’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination because Fernandes testified inconsistently regarding the alleged confrontation between Hindu fundamentalists and Catholic protesters on June 10, 2000. Fernandes failed to provide a reasonable explanation for this inconsistency, and the inconsistency goes to the heart of his claim of persecution. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004). In the absence of credible testimony, Fernandes failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Fernandes’ CAT claim is based on the same evidence that the BIA found not credible, and he points to no further evidence to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Because we affirm the BIA’s adverse credibility ruling on the above ground, we do not address Fernandes' argument that the IJ erred in according full weight to the asylum officer's testimony.
     