
    Resham SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70136.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
    Earle A. Sylva, Esq., Rai Law & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, Tsz-Hai Huang, Hardeep S. Rai, Earle A. Sylva, Tsz-Hai Huang, Rai & Assoc., San Francisco, 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, Rene L. Rocque, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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

Resham Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 723 (9th Cir.1997), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because it was based on Singh’s unconvincing demeanor and inconsistencies in his testimony that went to the heart of his claim. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999). The record does not compel the conclusion that Singh’s testimony was credible. See id. at 1149-50. Accordingly, Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum or "withholding of removal. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir.1998).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh is not entitled to relief under the CAT because he did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to India. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

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.
     