Sharma

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner-Appellant Anil Sharma, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the denial by the Immigration Judge (IJ) of Sharma’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. IJ Webber found that Sharma’s testimony was not credible and the BIA agreed, adopting the IJ’s opinion as its own. In a related case, Sharma appeals the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we recount these only to the extent necessary to understand our decision.

BIA decisions regarding whether an alien is eligible for asylum are affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. Karouni v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1163, 1170 (9th Cir.2005). "We review the BIA’s findings of fact, including credibility findings, for substantial evidence and must uphold the BIA’s finding unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th Cir.2003). Congress has codified this deferential standard of review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact…