
    Shiwa SILAN, et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73299.
    Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXXXXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 5, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 10, 2003.
    Patrick O. Cantor, Esq., Buttar & Cantor, LLP, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.
    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, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Terri Leon-Benner, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KLEINFELD, GOULD, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The adverse credibility determinations made by the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals are supported by specific and cogent explanations. See Singhr-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151-54 (9th Cir.1999); Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 724 (9th Cir.1997). Even if Silan testified truthfully, a reasonable fact finder would not be compelled to conclude that his story establishes past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of any of the five protected grounds, or that it is more likely than not that removal would result in persecution on account of any of those grounds or torture. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b), (c)(2); Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967-68 (9th Cir.1998); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995).

PETITION 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.
     