Case Name: Jatinder KAUR; Ravinder Singh Kalsi, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-14
Citations: 120 F. App'x 754
Docket Number: No. 03-73617; Agency Nos. A77-374-634, A77-374-635
Parties: Jatinder KAUR; Ravinder Singh Kalsi, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 754–754

Head Matter:
Jatinder KAUR; Ravinder Singh Kalsi, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-73617.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.
Decided Feb. 14, 2005.
Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
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.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jatinder Kaur and Ravinder Singh Kalsi, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming the immigration judge's ("LJ") denial of their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination. Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's and Id's adverse credibility determination. The record contains inconsistencies that go to the heart of Singh's asylum claim, including whether Singh has had contact with family members in India, which goes to his fear of persecution. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).
Because Singh failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 725 (9th Cir.1997).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).