Case Name: David SHAD, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-14
Citations: 97 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: No. 02-72823
Parties: David SHAD, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
David SHAD, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-72823.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2004.
Decided May 14, 2004.
Garish Sarin, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, M. Jocelyn Lo pez-Wright, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David Shad, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision summarily affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding. The IJ offered specific, cogent reasons for disbelieving Shad based on inconsistencies between Shad's testimony and his declarations going to the heart of the asylum claim, including events leading up to his departure, his arrests, and his detentions. See id. at 1043. Accordingly, Shad failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See id. at 1045; Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).
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.