
    Walter Omar HERNANDEZ-VILLALTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71417.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2012.
    
      Gloria Lopez, Law Office of Gloria Lopez, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Anna Nelson, OIL, 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: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Walter Omar Hernandez-Villalta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 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 new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Hernandez-Villalta made no mention of his political party volunteer work in his asylum application, see Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir.2008), and Hernandez-Villalta also failed to provide any corroboration of his political activities, see Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 723-24 (9th Cir.1997). HernandezVillalta’s explanations for the discrepancies do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Hernandez-Villalta’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.
     