Case Name: Damtew Gebremariam FELEKE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-10
Citations: 118 F. App'x 210
Docket Number: No. 03-71799
Parties: Damtew Gebremariam FELEKE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 118
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
Damtew Gebremariam FELEKE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71799.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 10, 2004.
Nicole Hope Nelson, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Andrew M. Eschen, Esq., Julia K. Doig, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Damtew Gebremariam Feleke, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order, affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") 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 will uphold the BIA's decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.
The IJ based his adverse credibility finding on, among other things, inconsistencies between petitioner's application and his testimony on matters that go to the heart of his asylum claims, including circumstances surrounding when prison officials broke his teeth dining a three-month detention period. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). The IJ provided specific and cogent reasons for finding petitioner not credible, and the denial of asylum is supported by substantial evidence. See id. Because petitioner 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 Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (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.