
    Hulin CUI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70399.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 16, 2010.
    
      Melanie M. Yang, Law Offices of Melanie M. Yang, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    James A. Hurley, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Mark Walter, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, 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

Hulin Cui, 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, 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, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because the IJ made a specific and cogent demean- or finding, see Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 686 (9th Cir.2003), and because the inconsistencies with respect to Cui’s detention and employment history were material and go to the heart of his claims, see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-43 (9th Cir.2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Cui’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Cui’s CAT claim is based on the same statements found to be not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to China, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT. 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.
     