
    Alhasan GEREW, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70341.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 12, 2018.
    
    Filed March 20, 2013.
    Bakary Fansu Conteh, Esquire, Law Office of Bakary Fansu Conteh, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-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: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alhasan Gerew, a native and citizen of The Gambia, 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 factual findings, including adverse credibility findings, for substantial evidence. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. Gerew’s testimony regarding his own views and those of his political party were vague and unresponsive. See id. Absent credible testimony, Gerew’s asylum and withholding claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Further, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Gerew’s CAT claim because he did not establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by the Gambian government or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

Finally, we reject Gerew’s contention that the agency did not conduct a meaningful review of his withholding of removal and CAT claims. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (BIA need not “write an exegesis on every contention”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

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