
    Jianbo SHAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72815
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 22, 2016
    Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Yanal H. Yousef, Trial Attorney, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jianbo Shao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s 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 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 review de novo due process claims, Hernandez v. Mukasey, 624 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Shao’s omission from his asylum application that family planning officials threatened to sterilize him. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048; Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination supported by omission of crucial facts from asylum application). Shao’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible testimony, Shao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Shao’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels 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. We reject his contentions that the agency did not analyze his claim properly. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim),

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