from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and request for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s denial of asylum based on an adverse credibility determination. Gao’s testimony was materially inconsistent with his statement to the asylum officer regarding a matter that goes to the heart of his asylum claim, namely, whether or not he practiced Falun Gong in China. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). Gao’s asylum application also failed to
holding that inconsistencies between an application and testimony can serve as the basis for adverse credibility findings where the testimonial change goes to the heart of a petitioners claim holding that where asylum officer testifies regarding accuracy of interviewing procedures inconsistencies between petitioners asylum interview testimony and merits hearing testimony form sufficient basis to uphold adverse credibility determination holding that inconsistencies in the aliens statements must go to the heart of the asylum claim to justify an adverse credibility finding holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum holding that an adverse credibility finding can be based on materially different asylum claims in an airport interview and petitioners subsequent testimony before the ij