Case Name: Edmond ISAYAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-09
Citations: 115 F. App'x 343
Docket Number: No. 03-73595
Parties: Edmond ISAYAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 343–343

Head Matter:
Edmond ISAYAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-73595.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 9, 2004.
Edmond Isayan, Granada Hills, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Edmond Isayan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility finding and will uphold the IJ's decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's decision. Isayan's testimony was inconsistent with his asylum application. The discrepancies relate to the basis of his alleged fear of persecution and go to the heart of his asylum claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001); see also Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000).
By failing to qualify for asylum, Isayan necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.