
    CHUNXIANG LU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74178.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 22, 2010.
    Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Aimee J. Frederickson, Edward Earl Wiggers, Esquire, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los An-geles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Chunxiang Lu, a native and citizen of China, 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, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on Lu’s internally inconsistent testimony as to the motivation for Lu’s three trips to the United States during the year of her claimed arrest in China. See id. at 741-42 (inconsistency goes to the heart of the claim if it concerns events central to petitioner’s version of why she was persecuted). Substantial evidence further supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on Lu’s evasive answers to questions regarding the purpose of her previous trips to this country. See Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1256-57 (9th Cir.2003) (“An asylum seeker’s ‘obvious evasiveness’ may be enough to uphold an adverse credibility finding.”). Absent credible testimony, Lu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 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.
     