
    JI LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71225.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2014.
    
    Filed April 14, 2014.
    Carmen Diamore-Siah, Esquire, Law Office of Carmen Diamore-Siah, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Liza Murcia, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Oil, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, 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: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ji Lin, 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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Lin’s omission from his asylum application and declaration that the police urged fellow prisoners to beat him, and that the police made visits to his home after they released him from custody. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2011) (“Material alterations in the applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding.”). Lin’s explanations for the omissions do not compel a contrary conclusion. See id. at 974. In the absence of credible testimony, Lin’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.
     