
    Anahit HOVHANISYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71518.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Nov. 30, 2009.
    Asbet Issakhanian, Law Offices of Asbet A. Issakhanian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    Joanne E. Johnson, Esquire, OIL, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anahit Hovhanisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Hovhanisyan’s asylum application was materially inconsistent with her testimony concerning the identity and motive of her attackers, Hovhanisyan failed to provide a reasonable explanation for these inconsistencies, and the inconsistencies goes to the heart of her claim. See Ceballos-Castillo v. INS, 904 F.2d 519, 520 (9th Cir.1990). In the absence of credible testimony, Hovhanisyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review Hovhanisyan’s CAT claim because she failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     