
    Victor Manuel SOSA-CARDONA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72609.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 21, 2011.
    Tamiko Moore, Esquire, Law Office of Tamiko O. Moore, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel lee, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Manuel Sosa-Cardona, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 factual findings. Fa- rah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based on the discrepancies between Sosa-Cardona’s declaration and his testimony regarding the identity of his kidnapers and the length of his hospital stay. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004). In the absence of credible testimony, Sosa-Cardona’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Because Sosa-Cardona’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Guatemala, his CAT claim- also fails. See id. at 1156-57.

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