
    Parminder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-77057.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 7, 2009.
    Filed Dec. 16, 2009.
    Robert B. Jobe, Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Alison Marie Igoe, Erica Miles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Parrainder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA that the inconsistencies in Singh’s asylum application go beyond “minor” inconsistencies. The conflict in the evidence over Singh’s arrest and the time he spent in the hospital in January 1993 calls into doubt whether the arrest actually occurred. This inconsistency “ ‘relates to the basis for [his] alleged fear of persecution,’ ” and therefore goes to the heart of his asylum claim. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-42 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir.2006)). Further, the immigration judge (“U”) based his credibility determination, in part, on Singh’s demeanor. We give credibility determinations that are based on demeanor “special deference.” Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999).

Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Don, 476 F.3d at 741. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     