
    LI ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74452
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 19, 2018
    Li Zhang, Pro Se
    Lindsay Brooke Glauner, Esquire, Trial 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: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Li Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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 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 determination based on omissions from Zhang’s declaration and direct testimony as to the harm she experienced in China and inconsistencies in her testimony as to her first trip to the United States. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Zhang’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir, 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the .agency’s finding that Zhang’s corroborative evidence did not otherwise establish her eligibility for relief, See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Zhang’s CAT claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not Zhang would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See id.

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