
    PINGPING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73159.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 6, 2012.
    Pingping Chen, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
    Monica Antoun, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, 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

Pingping Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Given the problems the agency identified regarding Chen’s documentary evidence and testimony, the record does not compel reversal of the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) (upholding adverse credibility finding that went to key elements of the asylum claim, including identity); Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.2005) (upholding adverse credibility finding where testimony lacked the requisite “ring of truth”). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Chen’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Because Chen’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and she does not point to any evidence that shows it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.

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