
    Varduhi SASHOYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74625.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
    Boris Baladjanian, Valencia, CA, for Petitioner.
    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, Gregg I. Malawer, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Varduhi Sashoyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her 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 the agency’s adverse credibility determination, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because Sashoyan testified about her alleged mistreatment in an internally inconsistent manner. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir.2007) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim); Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.2005) (repeated and significant inconsistencies deprived claim of the requisite “ring of truth”). Because at least one of the identified grounds underlying the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the negative credibility finding. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004). In the absence of credible testimony, Sa-shoyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, because Sashoyan’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the IJ found not credible, and she points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. 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.
     