
    Yinghui ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74385.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 19, 2010.
    
      Yinghui Zhang, San Gabriel, CA, pro se.
    Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial, Barry J. Pettinato, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yinghui Zhang, 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 (“IJ”) 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. Telele v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on the IJ’s demeanor finding, and based on the discrepancy between Zhang’s asylum application and testimony regarding the police’s motivations for persecuting him, the inconsistencies go to the heart of his claim. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999) (courts “give special deference to a credibility determination that is based on demeanor”) (citation and internal quotation omitted); Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-43 (9th Cir.2007) (inconsistencies regarding the event that spurred the persecutors to threaten petitioner go to the heart of the claim and are not trivial). In the absence of credible evidence, Zhang has failed to show eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Zhang’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim 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.
     