Senthinathan

MEMORANDUM ***

Satheeskannan Senthinathan appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming denial by the immigration judge (IJ) of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We affirm.

Generally, courts of appeals review decisions of the Board, and not those of immigration judges. See Alaelua v. INS, 45 *866 F.3d 1379, 1381-82 (9th Cir.1995). But where, as here, the Board affirms the decision of the immigration judge for the reasons stated in her decision without offering its own discussion of particular findings of the immigration judge, the Court reviews the decision of the immigration judge. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 887-88 (9th Cir.2001); Alaelua, 45 F.3d at 1381-82 . The substantial evidence standard of review governs the judicial review of adverse credibility findings in removal cases. Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d at 888 (citation omitted).

There is substantial record evidence to support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002). Apart from Senthinathan’s admittedly false testimony, there were significant internal…