
    Ranjeet SINGH, aka Ranjit Singh, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74274.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 26, 2016.
    
    Filed April 29, 2016.
    Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
    Liza Murcia, Oil, Anthony Cardozo Payne, 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: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ranjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 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 Singh’s inconsistent testimony as to whether he recognized the individuals who attacked him in August 2010, and the circumstances under which he was found after that attack. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”). Singh’s explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel the contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). 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).

Finally, Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Singh does not point to any evidence that compels the finding it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir.2006).

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