MEMORANDUM **

The IJ found numerous inconsistencies in Shahlapour-Anisi’s oral testimony that “go to the heart of [her] asylum claim,” Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001)), and “provide adequate support for the IJ’s negative credibility finding,” Kasnecovic v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2005). We therefore “defer to the IJ’s ... findings and uphold the denial of asylum relief.” Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

We also deny Shahlapour-Anisi’s application for withholding of removal because “[a] failure to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to establish eligibility for asylum ... necessarily results in a failure to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of deportation.” Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000).

Finally, we reject Shahlapour-Anisi’s contention that the IJ violated her due process rights by admitting and relying on the March 5, 1987 Order to Show Cause because there is a presumption of regularity in the delivery of documents by a government official. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2007). Shahlapour-Anisi’s equivocal testimony *622 that she didn’t recall whether she was served with the Order to Show Cause fails to overcome this presumption.

DENIED.