
    Manpreet KAUR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71673.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
    
    Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
    Madan Ahluwalia, Esq., Ahluwalia Law Office, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner.
    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, Richard M. Evans, Esq., John-Davis, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manpreet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence, Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1253 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Kaur has not demonstrated that the evidence compels reversal of the IJ’s decision, because the IJ provided specific reasons for questioning the credibility of Kaur’s testimony about key elements of her asylum application, including her identity and her affiliation with the All-India Sikh Student Federation, see Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003), and Kaur failed to produce corroborating evidence or explain this failure, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, we must defer to the IJ’s credibility findings and uphold the denial of asylum relief. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Because Kaur failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.
     