
    Qingwei JIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70195
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 2, 2016
    Thomas Prince, Law Offices of Thomas Prince, Pomona, CA, for Petitioner.,
    Nehal Kamani, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges,
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Qingwei Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture' (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Jin’s inconsistent testimony regarding his arrest in 2008, and inconsistencies between his testimony and documentary evidence concerning his prior attpmpts to obtain a visa and his employment information. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Jin’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In. the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Jin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Jin’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Jin does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in China. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     