Dhillon

*256 MEMORANDUM **

Dhillon petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the Board affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition.

“The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is reviewed for substantial evidence. The IJ’s decision may be reversed only if the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find that the petitioner was not credible.” Shire v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 1288, 1295 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). “An adverse credibility ruling will be upheld so long as identified inconsistencies go to the ‘heart of [the]' asylum claim.’ ” Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), quoting Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir.2002).

Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The IJ identified numerous inconsistent, implausible, or vague aspects of Dhillon’s testimony, such as…