
    Indrid Yolanda SANTOS-CANAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73497.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 19, 2010.
    J. Hernando Prado, Esquire, Law Offices of J. Hernando Prado, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Mary Lee Quinn, Esquire, Trial, Emily Anne Radford, DOJ — 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: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Indrid Yolanda Santos-Canas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming 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 adverse credibility findings, Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because the repeated and significant inconsistencies in Santos-Canas’ testimony and between her testimony and declaration concern events that go to the heart of her claim. See Chehchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). In the absence of credible testimony, Santos-Canas failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denied of CAT relief because Santos-Ca-nas did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir.2007).

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