
    Yanling WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71716.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth- Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 21, 2013.
    Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Nehal Kamani, Kohsei Ugumori, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yanling Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. 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 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the difference between Wang’s statement and testimony regarding her alleged past abortion, and the discrepancies in her testimony regarding her employment at Quilín. See id. at 1045-48 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under “totality of the circumstances”). Wang’s explanations, including memory problems, do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Wang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims based on her alleged past abortion fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to consider any argument Wang now makes about a future fear of sterilization because she did not raise this to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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