
    Wisam Botros ORAHA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74667.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
    Douglas D. Nelson, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Ronald B. Seely, Esquire, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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

Wisam Botros Oraha, a native and citizen of Iraq, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming 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 an adverse credibility determination, Morgan v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir.2008), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Oraha’s asylum application omitted his two month military detention and the bombing of his store, see Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir.2003) (omission of a “dramatic, pivotal event” from asylum application supported adverse credibility determination). These omissions go to the heart of Oraha’s claim, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004) and Oraha’s explanation does not compel reversal of the agency’s determination, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Oraha’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

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