
    Gopal SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71664.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2005.
    
    Decided Jan. 18, 2005.
    Earle A. Sylva, Esq., George T. Heridis, Esq., Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Marshall Tamor Golding, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gopal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Where, as here, the BIA affirms without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042-43 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny this petition for review.

Because the IJ offered specific, cogent reasons for questioning Singh’s credibility, and because Singh has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion to the contrary, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Singh did not establish that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s contention that he is entitled to relief under CAT because he failed to exhaust the issue before the BIA. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1199 n. 1 (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.
     