
    Anthony Leslie Vincent DE VOS; Sharon Dessrie De Vos; Darren Alistair De Vos, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73480.
    Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXXXXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.
    
    Decided Aug. 4, 2005.
    Prashanthi Rangan, Korenberg Abramowitz & Feldun, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioners.
    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, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anthony Leslie Vincent De Vos, his wife, Sharon Dessrie De Vos, and child, Darren Alistair De Vos, natives and citizens of Sri Lanka, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of their appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because De Vos omitted significant information from his asylum application and declaration that went to the heart of his asylum claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir.2004). As such, we are not compelled to conclude that a reasonable fact finder would find De Vos credible. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, we deny the asylum and withholding of removal claims.

Because De Vos’s CAT claim is based on the same facts that the IJ found not credible and De Vos points to no other evidence that the IJ should have considered in making the CAT determination, substantial evidence supports the denial of De Vos’s CAT claim. See id. at 1157.

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuanee of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       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.
     