Case Name: Balbir Singh LUBHANA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-15
Citations: 83 F. App'x 222
Docket Number: No. 02-72202; Agency No. A76-671-730
Parties: Balbir Singh LUBHANA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 83
Pages: 222–222

Head Matter:
Balbir Singh LUBHANA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-72202.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 15, 2003.
Earle A. Sylva, Esq., Rai Law & Associates, PC, Rohit Dharwadkar, Law Offices of Hardeep Singh Rai, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Terri Leon-Benner, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
B albir Singh Lubhana, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an immigration judge's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility finding and a denial of asylum and will uphold the IJ's decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding because Lubhana's testimony was vague, contradictory, and contained implausibilities. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151-52 (9th Cir.1999). Because the factual discrepancies went to the heart of his asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038,1043 (9th Cir.2001).
It follows that Lubhana did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,1244 (9th Cir.2000).
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.