
    YING LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70895.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 2, 2012.
    Gary J. Yerman, Esquire, Law Office of Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Gary J. Newkirk, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this Case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ying Lin, 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, withholding of removal, and relief 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, applying the new 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.

Under the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on discrepancies between Lin’s testimony and her declaration. See id. at 1047 (petitioner’s “inability to consistently describe the underlying events that gave rise to his fear” supported an adverse credibility finding). Accordingly, Lin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Because Lin’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not she will be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim also fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (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.
     