
    SHANLING LU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70561
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 21, 2017
    Shanling Lu, Pro Se
    John M. McAdams, Jr., OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICJS, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shanling Lu, 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 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 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), and we deny the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials Lu references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies as to whether Lu had a receipt for paying the fine levied when he and his wife had a second child, how Lu signed an agreement to forfeit his land, when Lu received notice the government was confiscating his land and when he protested the confiscation, and whether he had lived outside of his family home. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Lu’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Lu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1163, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Lu’s contentions as to corroboration, or the merits of his asylum and withholding of removal claims.

Lu’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Lu does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of China. Id. at 1156-57.

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