
    Ramesh SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71422.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Filed July 26, 2006.
    Hardeep Singh Rai, George T. Heridis, Esq., Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Anthony C. Payne, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Lucinda S. Woolery, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramesh Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between petitioner’s testimony and application regarding the identity of his attackers and subsequent assaults, and inconsistencies between his testimony and documentary evidence regarding his mother’s death. See id. at 1043-45.

Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because petitioner’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony that was found not credible, and he points to no other evidence to support this claim, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     