Case Name: Mohamed JAWARA Jawara, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-09
Citations: 114 F. App'x 846
Docket Number: No. 02-73456
Parties: Mohamed JAWARA Jawara, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 846–847

Head Matter:
Mohamed JAWARA Jawara, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-73456.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 9, 2004.
Manuel Rios, III, Esq., Rios Cantor, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, John J. Andre, 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
Mohamed Jawara Jawara, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an 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 IJ's decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding because Jawara's testimony was inconsistent with his asylum application and with his asylum interview. The discrepancies relate to the basis for his alleged fear of persecution and go to the heart of his asylum claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).
By failing to qualify for asylum, Jawara necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).
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.