Regassa

MEMORANDUM

Michael Leta Regassa petitions for review of a final order of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that Regassa was not credible and had not shown past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a statutorily-protected ground. Accordingly, the BIA denied Regassa’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We conclude that Regassa has not met his burden of showing that the adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence, and therefore deny the petition for review.

Where, as here, the BIA summarily adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision, the court reviews the IJ’s decision, and the IJ’s adverse credibility determination will be upheld unless the evidence compels a contrary result. Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc); Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2006). Adverse credibility findings are reviewed under a substantial evidence standard, Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2009), and under this standard, “ ‘administrative findings of fact are conclusive…