
    HONGXIANG LIN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71970.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007.
    
    Filed April 19, 2007.
    Hongxiang Lin, El Monte, CA, pro se.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See-Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hongxiang Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding based on an internal inconsistency in Lin’s testimony regarding whether he obtained a passport and visa in his own name or left China with a false passport. See id. at 1043. Additionally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s demeanor finding based on Lin’s manner of answering questions on Christianity. See Paredes-Urrestarazu v. INS, 36 F.3d 801, 818 (9th Cir.1994).

Because Lin cannot meet the lower standard of eligibility for asylum, he has failed to show that he is entitled to withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Lin’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony that was found not credible, and he points to no other evidence that the BIA should have considered in making the CAT determination, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1157.

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