
    Shaowei HE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71814
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    June 22, 2016
    Evan Lee Murri, Law Offices of Evan L. Murri, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Nancy Na-seem Safavi, Trial Attorney, Andrew Nathan O’Malley, Trial Attorney, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shaowei He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on He’s knowing submission of a fabricated household registration document to the immigration court, and his submission of a counterfeit marriage certificate. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir. 2011) (“lies and fraudulent documents when they are no longer necessary for the immediate escape from persecution do support an adverse inference”). Thus, He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Jiang, 754 F.3d at 740.

He’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and He does not otherwise point to any evidence that compels the finding it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned. See id. at 740-41.

Finally, we do not consider materials referenced in He’s opening brief that were not part of the record before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     