Case Name: Rosario LOPEZ-MENDES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-20
Citations: 228 F. App'x 754
Docket Number: No. 06-71213
Parties: Rosario LOPEZ-MENDES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 754–755

Head Matter:
Rosario LOPEZ-MENDES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71213.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 20, 2007.
Jorge I. Rodriguez Choi, Law Office of Jorge I. Rodriguez Choi, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Kristin K. Edison, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rosario Lopez-Mendes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision summarily affirming the ruling of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that we will uphold IJ's decision unless evidence compels a contrary conclusion). The inconsistencies between petitioner's asylum application and the testimony presented at the hearing relate to the nature of the conduct that he claims amounted to persecution, and go to the heart of his asylum claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).
Because Lopez-Mendes failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, he necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.