Singh

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Gurpreet Singh (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration’s (“BIA”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal and claim under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) without opinion, “we review the I J’s opinion as if it were the opinion of the BIA.” Jahed v. INS, 356 F.3d 991, 997 (9th Cir.2004).

The facts and proceedings are known to the parties and are only repeated here as necessary. We review factual determinations for substantial evidence. See Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000). Factual determinations made about an alien’s eligibility for asylum are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B). The same standard applies to decisions for relief under CAT, and an even more stringent standard applies to withholding of removal. Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 936 (9th Cir.2004); Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995).

In the asylum context, an adverse finding of credibility must be supported by “a specific, cogent reason” that goes to the “heart” of the asylum claim. Li v.…