
    Ashot Hrant GASPARYAN; MARGARITA SOREN HAKOBIAN; GARIK GASPARYAN, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70248.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 7, 2013.
    
    Filed Nov. 20, 2013.
    Sassoun Nalbandian, Law Offices of Sas-soun A. Nalbandian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
    Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Keith Ian Mcmanus, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, FISHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ashot Gasparyan, Margarita Hakobian, and Garik Gasparyan (the “Gasparyans”) seek review of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

After reviewing the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and examining the Immigration Judge’s “oral decision as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion,” Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir.2000), we conclude that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination. Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2011); Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999). At the least, the inconsistencies and equivocations in Gasparyan’s testimony concerning the duration of his commitment to the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion go to the heart of the Gasparyans’ asylum claim. Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir.2006).

The Gasparyans’ challenges to the denial of CAT relief were never presented to the BIA below. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004); Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir.2003).

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