
    Balwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72496.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 24, 2015.
    Pardeep S. Grewal, Esquire, Law Offices of Pardeep S. Grewal, Castro Valley, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Terri Jane Scadron, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, 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

Balwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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, including adverse credibility findings. Za-manov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2011). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on Singh’s material, inconsistent statements regarding whether the police visited his wife after he fled, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004) (court bound to accept adverse credibility finding where an inconsistency goes to the heart of the claim), and based on his admitted lies, see Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir.2011) (“An asylum applicant who lies to immigration authorities easts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story.”). In the absence of credible testimony, petitioner’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because petitioner’s CAT claim was based on the same statements that were found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with consent or acquiescence of a public official in India, Ms CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.

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