
    XI TIAN HE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72914.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 4, 2010.
    Albert Chow, Lin & Chow, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District
    
      Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew Jacob Oli-veira, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, 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

Xi Tian He, a native and citizen of China, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The record does not compel reversal of the agency’s adverse credibility determination because He’s testimony was inconsistent with his wife’s declaration as to whether his wife had been forcibly sterilized, see Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1257-58 (9th Cir.2003), and He’s explanation does not compel a contrary conclusion, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

He’s due process claim regarding faulty translation fails because the transcriber did not indicate he was experiencing any difficulty in translation, He’s counsel was able to correct and clarify He’s testimony before the IJ, see Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 850 n. 2 (9th Cir.1994), and He faded to establish that a better translation likely would have made a difference in the outcome, see Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir.1993).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review He’s CAT claim because he did not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

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