Kumar

MEMORANDUM **

The IJ determined that Kumar failed to carry his burden of proving his entitlement to asylum based on her finding that Kumar was not credible. This determination was supported by substantial evidence. The IJ identified specific inconsistencies in Kumar’s testimony regarding which brother was killed and which brother informed the police about the location of the terrorist leader, issues that went to the heart of Kumar’s asylum claim. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.2005). Because substantial evidence in the record supports at least one of the IJ’s grounds for her adverse credibility determination, and the non-credible testimony goes to the heart of Kumar’s asylum claim, we uphold the BIA’s and IJ’s denial of asylum. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004). Although Kumar con *168 tends that his testimony is not internally inconsistent, but merely unclear, “[t]o reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports [the contrary] conclusion, but compels it.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (emphases in original). Kumar’s vague and confusing testimony does not…