Case Name: Qing Bo WEI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-08
Citations: 204 F. App'x 685
Docket Number: No. 05-74447
Parties: Qing Bo WEI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 685–686

Head Matter:
Qing Bo WEI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74447.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
Filed Dec. 8, 2006.
Allan A. Samson, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Selin Cherian-Rivers, Mark L. Gross, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, LEAYY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Qing Bo Wei, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the BIA's decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's adverse credibility determination based on omissions and inconsistencies going to the heart of Wei's claim. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that substantial evidence supported the IJ's adverse credibility determination where petitioner knew little about the political party he claimed to belong to and there were significant inconsistencies within his testimony). The BIA concluded that Wei inaccurately described some of the critical fundamentals of Falun Gong. See id.
As the record does not compel the conclusion that Wei's testimony was credible, see id., Wei has not established eligibility for asylum or 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.