
    Kuldip KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74477.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 15, 2010.
    
    Filed July 19, 2010.
    Kuldip Dhariwal, Esquire, Law Office Kuldip Dhariwal, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
    Drew Brinkman, R. Alexander Goring, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and CEBULL, Chief District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Richard F. Cebull, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kuldip Kaur, a national and citizen of India, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal under both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination under the REAL ID Act, which applies. See Pub.L. No. 109-13, Div. B, Title I, § 101(a)(3), 119 Stat. 231, 303 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii)). Although Kaur gave detailed testimony about other things, her testimony about harassment she claimed to suffer was vague, generalized, and devoid of details. Likewise, the affidavits submitted by the sarpanch of her village and Kaur’s brother fail to mention any problems that Kaur experienced. Given the totality of the circumstances, the IJ was not compelled to find her credible. That being so, there was no credible evidence to support her claim for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under CAT.

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