
    DA JIN YU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72315.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 11, 2012.
    Albert Chow, Lin & Chow, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, John D. Williams, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Da Jin Yu, 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 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 new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the discrepancy between Yu’s testimony and his declaration regarding when he was first introduced to Falun Gong, the lack of detail in Yu’s testimony regarding the friend who he claimed introduced him to Falun Gong, and the implausibility of the time line of events. See id. at 1040,1046-47 (lack of detail is an appropriate factor to consider under the REAL ID Act, as well as the ability to consistently describe the events underlying the petitioner’s fear); Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir.2007) (the implausibility of the petitioner’s story may undermine credibility). In the absence of credible testimony, Yu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review Yu’s unex-hausted contention that he is eligible for CAT relief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (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.
     