
    Sofia SANTIAGO-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70987.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed May 3, 2011.
    
      Todd James Hilts, Esquire, Law Offices of Todd J. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Laura M.L. Maroldy, OIL, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sofia Santiago-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding because Santiago-Ramirez’s testimony was inconsistent with the letter she submitted from Dennis and Flory Vander Zyl concerning the reason the gang harassed and mistreated her. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the Real ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”); Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony, Santiago-Ramirez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) .

We lack jurisdiction over Santiago-Ramirez’ CAT claim because she did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (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.
     