Case Name: Santokh BAL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-18
Citations: 227 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 04-71061
Parties: Santokh BAL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
Santokh BAL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71061.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 18, 2007.
Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Trent W. Luckinbill, Esq., Greg D. Mack, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Santokh Bal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") affirmance of an Immigration Judge's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies within petitioner's testimony regarding his brother's whereabouts after his 1992 arrest, and the reasons for petitioner's 1996 arrest. See id. at 1043-45.
Because petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Because petitioner's CAT claim is based on the same testimony that was found not credible, and he points to no other evidence to support this claim, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1157.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.