
    Nadege Carine Dongmeza DONGMO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73164.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 23, 2012.
    Nadege Carine Dongmeza Dongmo, Pasadena, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Tim Ramnitz, Trial, 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: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nadege Carine Dongmeza Dongmo', a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the discrepancies between Dong-mo’s declaration and her testimony regarding when she first noticed the cars following her and her mother, and how long she lived in hiding with her grandmother after the accident. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Dongmo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Because Dongmo’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not she will be tortured if returned to Cameroon, her CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.

In light of our order dated March 11, 2010, Dongmo’s request for a stay of removal is moot.

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.
     