
    XINAI HE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72309.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2015.
    Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    
      OIL, Joanna L. Watson, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, David Nicholas Har-ling, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xinai He, 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 asylum and withholding of removal. 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, 1039^0 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA found He was not credible based on the omission of material events from his asylum application and declaration, as well as his failure to seek corroboration from his brother who lived nearby, and his explanation for failing to do so. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under totality of the circumstances); see also Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir.2010) (omission from asylum applications of key event forming basis for petitioners’ claim supported adverse credibility finding). We reject He’s contention that the BIA distorted or mis-characterized the record. In the absence of credible testimony, He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (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.
     