
    Santhosny Anthony PINEM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71426.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 21, 2011.
    Karen Lynn Barr, Law Offices of Karen L. Barr, Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    
      David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Seattle, WA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Santhosny Anthony Pinem, a native and citizen of Indonesia, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Pinem’s asylum application omitted that a group of Muslims attacked and beat him for three hours in July 1998 and that he spent one week in the hospital following this attack, see id. at 1056-57, and because Pinem failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the omissions, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Pinem’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Pinem’s CAT claim because he failed to establish a likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence of government officials if returned to Indonesia. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir.2007).

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