
    Ravinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-74071, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 2, 2004.
    
    Decided May 12, 2004.
    Anju Multani, Downey, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, 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, Terri J. Scadron, Leslie McKay, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ravinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision, on the basis of an adverse credibility finding, that he was not eligible for asylum. Singh also claims that he is entitled to withholding of removal. The petition must be denied because substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) determination that Singh’s testimony lacked credibility and that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum based on past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on any protected ground.

There were serious inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and supporting documentation that were noted by the IJ. To overturn the decision, we would have to conclude that the evidence presented compelled a contrary result. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Given the serious inconsistencies in this record, that standard has not been met. Because Singh did not meet the eligibility requirements for asylum, he is not entitled to withholding of removal either.

THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IS 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.
     