evidence. Inconsistencies and material omissions in Javed’s testimony, non-responsive answers, and a lack of corroboration undermined his credibility. Accordingly, Javed fails to qualify for asylum, and he necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254-55 (9th Cir.2003). Although the IJ denied Javed’s asylum and withholding claims on the basis of his adverse credibility ruling, he failed to explain his reasons for rejecting Javed’s CAT claim. Because claims for asylum and withholding of removal are analytically separate from claims for relief under the CAT, the IJ was obligated to consider separately the merits of Javed’s CAT claim. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1280, 1283 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); see also Hamoui v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 821,
holding that the bia rule is reasonable holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte holding that petitioner had exhausted his claim by explicitly mentioning in his brief to the bia that he was requesting reversal of the ijs denial of relief under the convention against torture holding that it was within the discretion of the bia to deny a motion to reopen because it was not accompanied by an asylum application holding that the bia impermissibly conflated the standards for granting relief in asylum and convention cases