Case Name: Waseem Akram WARAICH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-24
Citations: 229 F. App'x 531
Docket Number: No. 05-76083
Parties: Waseem Akram WARAICH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
Waseem Akram WARAICH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76083.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 24, 2007.
Teresa Salazar, Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kristin A. Cabral, Esq., Marion E.M. Erickson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Waseem Akram Waraich, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision that summarily affirmed the ruling of an Immigration Judge ("U") denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ's decision, we review the IJ's decision as the final agency action. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir.2006). We review for substantial evidence, see Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition.
The IJ found Waraich not credible because, among other things, there was a discrepancy between his testimony and a letter submitted on his behalf. Because this inconsistency is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of Waraich's claim, we are bound to accept the IJ's adverse credibility determination. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.