
    GUIHUA GU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72220.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed July 31, 2013.
    Maria Christina Flores, Law Office of Maria Flores, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Jesse Matthew Bless, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guihua Gu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The agency concluded Gu was not credible for a number of reasons, including the implausibility that Gu — whose claim rested on his purported confrontations with government officials over compensation for demolished properties — would not bother to inquire whether the government had ultimately compensated landowners, his general testimony that lacked detail, and the inconsistencies and implausibilities related to his employment. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under totality of the circumstances). We reject Gu’s contention that the agency did not give his documentary evidence adequate weight. Accordingly, Gu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims 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.
     