
    LIZHEN ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70115.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 5, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 9, 2015.
    Shun Chiang Chen, Law Offices of Shun C. Chen, Irvine, CA, Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Sabatino F. Leo, O.I.L., D.O.J.-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Lizhen Zhang seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons stated below, we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility finding, which the BIA affirmed. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2011) (explaining the standard of review under the REAL ID Act). The BIA permissibly found Petitioner incredible given that Petitioner was inconsistent in her testimony regarding whether and when she had an intrauterine device inserted. Moreover, Petitioner failed to present specific documentary evidence that independently established her claims. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that “documentary evidence pertaining to the asylum applicant himself and to the events in which he was involved ... can independently establish facts essential to ... an asylum claim”). The BIA, therefore, properly denied Petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.

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