
    Gurdip SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73990.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 10, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 19, 2014.
    Gurdip Singh, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
    Hardeep Singh Rai, Hardeep S. Rai, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Andrew B. Insenga, Trial, OIL, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, William Charles Peachey, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ' MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Gurdip Singh petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”), denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and ordering-him removed from the United States. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Singh’s petition on the basis of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, and we review adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act’s substantial evidence standard. Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir.2014). Under such standard, the agency’s- findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).

We are satisfied that substantial evidence, such as Singh’s “extremely troubling” demeanor and “frequent nonrespon-sive[ness],” the inconsistencies between his statements and other materials in evidence, and the inherent implausibility of his account, supports the Board’s affirmation of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir.2010).

In the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony found to be not credible. See id. at 1156-57. Singh’s petition for review is therefore denied.

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