
    Foday SILLAH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71526.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 9, 2011.
    Antonio R. Salazar, Esquire, Salazar Law Office, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jane Tracey Schaffner, Ilissa M. Gould, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Foday Sillah, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 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, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based upon the omission from Sillah’s asylum application and declaration of his siblings’ deaths, see id. at 962-64 (omissions and inconsistencies that go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim support an adverse credibility finding), and Sillah’s failure to provide reasonable explanations for the omissions, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Sillah’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Sillah failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Sierra Leone. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).

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