
    Charanjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71312.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 22, 2011.
    
      Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and CONLON, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Charanjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because the inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and the asylum officer’s notes concerning the nature of the mistreatment Singh allegedly suffered during his two arrests go to the heart of his claim of persecution. See id. at 962-63. In the absence of credible testimony, Singh failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on testimony the agency found not credible, and no other evidence in the record compels a finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if he returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.

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