MEMORANDUM **

Alexandra Velasquez Sanchez,1 a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.

Because the BIA conducted a de novo review of the record and affirmed the IJ’s adverse findings, we limit our review to the BIA’s decision. Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001). We review the BIA’s findings of fact, including credibility findings, for substantial evidence and must uphold the BIA’s findings unless the evidence compels a contrary result. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 816-817, 117 L.Ed. 38 (1992); Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999).

The BIA provided specific, cogent reasons for its adverse credibility finding, noting that Velasquez’s testimony was inconsistent and insufficiently detailed. Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 342 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, we must uphold the BIA’s adverse credibility determination because it is supported by substantial evidence. See Singh-Kaur, 183 F.3d at 1151-53. Nor did the BIA err in holding that Velasquez failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and her political beliefs. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84, 112 S.Ct. at 816-817; Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2001); Lopez-Galarza v. INS, 99 F.3d 954, 959 (9th Cir. 1996). To the extent Velasquez *431claims other bases for asylum, we do not have jurisdiction over those remaining claims because she did not raise them before the BIA in the first instance. See Vargas v. U.S. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, the BIA did not err in determining that Velasquez is ineligible for asylum.2

DENIED.