
    XIN ZHAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73493
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 13, 2016 
    
    FILED September 21, 2016
    Xin Zhao, Pro Se.
    OIL, Vanessa Otero, Attorney, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xin Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 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). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based on an inconsistency as to Zhao’s alleged mistreatment in China. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Zhao’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Zhao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Zhao’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in China. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     