
    CAIQIN LI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72708
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 6, 2017  Pasadena, California
    Filed October 16, 2017
    Michael A. Rohr, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Michael A. Rohr, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner
    Nicole N. Murley, Attorney, OIL, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Li seeks review of a BIA order denying her claims for asylum and withholding of removal; the BIA decided Li did not meaningfully appeal the denial of her CAT claim, and she does not challenge that ruling on appeal to our court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny Li’s petition for review.

“We review factual findings of the IJ and BIA under the substantial evidence standard. That is, we must sustain factual findings if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record.” Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Under the REAL ID Act, the IJ’s credibility determination is based on “the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” which may include the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s account, the consistency between her written and oral statements, the internal consistency of her statements, and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in these statements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).

The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. For example, the IJ pointed to several inconsistencies in the record including Li stating a fact in a supplemental written application and then contradicting the fact while being questioned by her own attorney. Without credible testimony or other evidence supporting her claim, Li has not shown that she is entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     