
    LAN YING HE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73362.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 2013.
    Filed Nov. 22, 2013.
    William Kiang, Law Offices of Kiang and Kiang, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    Marion Guyton, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hi-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, KLEINFELD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Lan Ying He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

The BIA’s adverse credibility determination was based at least in part on inconsistencies between He’s testimony and the declaration that accompanied her application for asylum. He contends that there were no substantial inconsistencies or omissions in He’s testimony. But in her declaration He wrote that she fled to the countryside two weeks after the abortion, while she testified that she continued to work at the hospital for months. “Under the REAL ID Act, even minor inconsistencies that have a bearing on a petitioner’s veracity may constitute the basis for an adverse credibility determination.” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir.2011). We will not disturb an adverse credibility finding unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.2011). We cannot reach that conclusion here.

By failing to show that she was eligible for asylum, He also failed to make the more stringent showing that she was eligible for withholding from removal. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     