Xea
Xea v. Ashcroft
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Zhun Zhong Xea, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and his claim for relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“Convention Against Torture”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review the BIA’s credibility findings for substan-, *556 tial evidence and uphold an adverse credibility finding unless the evidence compels a contrary result. Singh-Kawr v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999). We deny the petition.
The inconsistencies in the record go to the heart of Xea’s asylum claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). The BIA’s adverse credibility determination and its conclusion that Xea is ineligible for asylum is therefore supported by substantial evidence. See id.
In failing to qualify for asylum, Xea necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995).