
    JIAN HANG HUANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70657.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 2, 2011.
    
      Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    David Nicholas Harling, Trial, Stuart Nickum, Trial, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jian Hang Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 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. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ found Huang not credible for several reasons, including the omission of material events from Huang’s asylum application, as well as an inconsistency between Huang’s testimony that he had been sterilized and medical evidence indicating Huang had not been sterilized. In light of these findings, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the Real ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”). In the absence of credible testimony, Huang’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.
     