
    Kulvinder SINGH CHALL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70538.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 10, 2004.
    
    Decided May 20, 2004.
    Earle A. Sylva, Esq., Taz-Hai Huang, Rai Law & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Esq., Jacqueline Drden, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kulvinder Singh Chali, a native and citizen of India, petitions for' review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review credibility findings for substantial evidence. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and documentary evidence shed doubt on whether he was arrested by Indian authorities in Bombay and also on the circumstances under which he decided to leave the country, incidents going to the heart of his asylum claim. See id.

Because we uphold the determination that Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, we also uphold the denial of his application for withholding of removal. See id.

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.
     