
    Eufemio Ortega ROMERO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73785.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
    Eufemio Ortega Romero, pro se, Josefina Lezama De Ortega, pro se, Rosalia Danasa Ortega Lezama, Anileni Ortega Lezama, pro se, San Marcos, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Susan Houser, Esq., Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P.-34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eufemio Ortega Romero and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition.

We lack jurisdiction to review the determination that no “extraordinary circumstances” excused Ortega’s untimely filing of his asylum application. Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir.2001).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 over the remainder of Ortega’s petition. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal, Hakeem, 273 F.3d at 816, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because Ortega’s inconsistent accounts about whether he was physically harmed in Mexico go to the heart of his withholding of removal claim. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Ortega’s tarnished testimony, and scant corroborating evidence, and the country conditions evidence in the record, did not show that Ortega would “more likely than not” be tortured upon his return to Mexico. See id. Accordingly, Ortega’s request for CAT relief was properly denied. See id.

PETITION DISMISSED in part AND DENIED in part. 
      
       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.
     