
    Vazgen BAGHDASARYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74489.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 .
    Filed Dec. 18, 2007.
    Artem M. Sarian, Esq., Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Janice K. Redfern, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Debra C. Brookes, U.S. Dept, of Justice Anitrust Division, New York, NY, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, petitioners’ request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vazgen Baghdasaryan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, and his wife, Margarita Gasaryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where it is unclear whether the BIA conducted a de novo review, we look to the IJ’s decision as a guide. See Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition in part, and dismiss in part.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s credibility finding regarding Baghdasaryan’s role in his volunteer organization. This inconsistency goes to the heart of his claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963-64 (9th Cir.2004). In the absence of credible evidence, Baghdasaryan has failed to show eligibility for asylum or withholding. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

We dismiss any challenge to Baghdasaryan’s CAT claim because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930-31 (9th Cir.2004).

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