MEMORANDUM

Arthur Mkrtchian petitions this court for review of the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denials of Mkrtchian’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ made an adverse credibility determination which the BIA affirmed. Mkrtchian argues that substantial evidence does not support the credibility determination. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition.

We review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s when the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision by citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A.1994), as it did here. Moreno-Morante v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.2007). An adverse credibility determination will stand unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 908 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The IJ found Mkrtehian not credible because, among other things, one of the principal instances of alleged persecution to which he testified was omitted entirely from prior testimony he provided at his mother’s immigration hearing. The episode was a forcible entry and beating he and his family suffered at the hands of Armenian police in April 1995. At his mother’s hearing, in addition to omitting the April incident, Mkrtehian testified that a similar incident approximately seven months later was the first time the police beat his family. The IJ provided Mkrtchi-an an opportunity to explain the inconsistency and Mkrtehian testified that he felt under pressure at the prior hearing and only provided direct answers to the questions he was asked. The IJ was not persuaded.

This discrepancy goes to the heart of Mkrtchian’s claims and adequately supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir.2008). The adverse credibility finding also supports the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. This reason by itself sufficiently supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION DENIED.

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