
    Yuanjian TANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72843.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Decided Nov. 24, 2015.
    Anders Laird Johnson, Trial, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jessica Dawgert, Trial, O.I.L., D.O.J-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: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yuanjian Tang, 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. 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, 1039-1040 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based on Tang’s admitted lies at his hearing about whether his wife and son applied for visas and visited the United States, his continued evasiveness on this topic, and his admitted lies to officials at the U.S. consulate in an effort to obtain a visa to vacation in Las Vegas. Id. at 1048; see also Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir.2011) (“An asylum applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story.”); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir.2011) (“[L]ies and fraudulent documents when they are no longer necessary for the immediate escape from persecution do support an adverse inference.”). In the absence of credible testimony, Tang’s asylum claim fails.

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