
    Taslima RAHMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71391.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Decided April 25, 2012.
    Ahmed M. Abdallah, Esquire, Hollywood, CA, for Petitioner.
    Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Taslima Rahman, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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 findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Rahman testified inconsistently regarding whether she learned she was charged with a crime before she fled Bangladesh and omitted from her asylum application that her brother was arrested and interrogated when police came to her home to look for her. See Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043. In the absence of credible testimony, Rahman’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Rahman’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and Rahman does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to Bangladesh, her CAT claim fails. See id. at 1157.

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