
    JIAJU ZHAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73127.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 21, 2011.
    Daniel Fong, Fong Law Group, Inc., Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    Nehal Kamani, Oil, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, John Blakeley, Senior Litigation Counsel, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-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: PREGERSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIDSON, Senior 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 Glen H. Davidson, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Northern Mississippi, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jiaju Zhao (“Zhao”), a native and citizen of China, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We dismiss Zhao’s asylum claim for lack of jurisdiction to review findings of fact going to the timeliness of asylum petitions. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). We have jurisdiction over Zhao’s remaining claims and we deny Zhao’s petition for review over those claims.

We review the BIA’s adverse credibility determination under a substantial evidence standard. Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1199 (9th Cir.2004). This court must accept the adverse credibility determination if no reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude differently. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir.2010). In this case, the Immigration Judge did not find Zhao’s testimony to be credible. Overall, it is unlikely that any reasonable factfinder would be compelled to reach a different conclusion. Therefore, Zhao’s withholding of removal claim fails. Zhao’s claim for protection under CAT is forfeited.

For these reasons, this petition is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     