
    Mukhitar SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-74449.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 12, 2004.
    
    Decided April 15, 2004.
    Surjit Singh, Law Office of Surgit Singh, APC, Anaheim, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christopher C. Fuller, Alison Marie Igoe, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, 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

Mukhitar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Singh contends that the IJ erred in denying him relief under the CAT. However, because Singh failed to raise this issue before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to address it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. The IJ gave specific and cogent reasons for disbelieving Singh, see Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043, and therefore, the record does not compel the conclusion that Singh was credible, see Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See id. at 971.

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.
     