
    Michael FNU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74751.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
    Houman Varzandeh, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, DOJ — 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. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael FNU, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence adverse credibility determinations, and reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

The agency found petitioner not credible because he omitted from his original asylum application three incidents which allegedly precipitated his flight from Indonesia. Petitioner asserted that in these incidents, he was detained, threatened, and interrogated, and on two occasions, that he was brutally beaten to the point of unconsciousness. Substantial evidence supports this adverse credibility determination. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir.2003) (petitioner’s omission of a “dramatic, pivotal” event from asylum application supported agency’s adverse credibility determination). In the absence of credible testimony, petitioner’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

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