
    Mindong ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70841.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 21, 2013.
    Gary J. Yerman, Esquire, Yerman & Associates, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Siu P. Wong, Esquire, Trial, Oil, 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: FISHER, GOULD, 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

Mindong Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection 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 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on Zheng’s inability to recall the name of the pastor who baptized him and inconsistent testimony related to employment and residences. See id. at 1043-44. The BIA was not compelled to accept Zheng’s explanations for the inconsistencies. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). We reject Zheng’s contentions that the agency’s analysis was improperly speculative. Accordingly, Zheng’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Further, because Zheng’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (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.
     