Ibrahim Traore petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of Traore’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. After careful review of the record, we conclude the BIA’s decision on Traore’s asylum application is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915, 918-19 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). Specifically, the IJ dis *129 credited Traore’s testimony about past persecution he suffered because Traore failed to raise political persecution in a previous asylum application and his explanation for failing to do so was unconvincing, and he failed to present documentary evidence to support his allegations. We defer to the IJ’s credibility finding because it was supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief. See Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (deference standard). In addition, we find because Traore failed to meet the burden of proof on his asylum claim, he failed to meet the higher burden for withholding of removal. See Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 932-33 (8th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, we deny Traore’s petition.