
    MEI HUI LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72839.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
    
      William K. Kiang, Esq., Kiang & Kiang, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Anthony C. Payne, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mei Hui Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“D”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because Lin’s testimony was inconsistent with her declaration with respect to who introduced her to Falun Gong, see Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1256-57 (9th Cir.2003), Lin was unable to describe her whereabouts during four of the ten months following her release from police detention and leading up to her departure from China, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001), and Lin’s explanations were unpersuasive, see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Lin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     