
    Toni DANDOCH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71726.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 24, 2005.
    Lisa D. Pickering, Koronberg, Abramowitz & Feldun, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    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, Douglas E. Ginsburg, William C. Peachey, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Toni Dandoch, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review both decisions when the BIA adopts the Id’s decision while adding its own reasons. See Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2000). We review for substantial evidence, Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.

Dandoch contends that he testified credibly, was subjected to persecution in Syria, and has a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned. His contentions lack merit. Because there are specific, cogent reasons for disbelieving Dandoch, and because Dandoch has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion to the contrary, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

Dandoch did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

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.
     