
    Bing Jing CHEN, a.k.a. Tonya Wing See Chiang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72150.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009 .
    Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
    Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Patrick James Glen, Esquire, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, AGU — District Director, Esquire, Office of the District Director, Hagatna, GU, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bing Jing Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Chen testified that prior to the arrest of members of her religious group, the police came to her home several times, warned her, and confiscated her religious books. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because Chen omitted this information from her otherwise detailed asylum application, and failed to explain adequately this significant omission. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir.2004). In the absence of credible testimony, Chen’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal 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.
     