
    WENPING ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73631.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 19, 2010.
    Maria Christina Flores, Law Office of Maria Flores, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jason X. Hamilton, Esquire, Susan Houser, DOJ — -U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wenping Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination because the inconsistencies regarding the timing and length of Zhu’s detention go to the heart of his claim. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.2005) (concluding the discrepancies were significant because they involved one of the few interactions between the petitioner and the police). In the absence of credible evidence, Zhu has failed to show eligibility for asylum or withholding. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Zhu does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically argued are deemed waived).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Zhu’s claim that the IJ demonstrated bias because this issue was not exhausted before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

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