
    Haykaz KHANJYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72534.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2014.
    Reynold E. Finnegan, II, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Finnegan & Diba A Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Christina J. Martin, 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: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Haykaz Khanjyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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, 1039-40 ,(9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistencies regarding when party members called Khanjyan, and when Khanjyan fled to his Aunt’s house. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the totality of circumstances). Khanjyan’s challenge to the agency’s adverse credibility finding lacks merit. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043-44 (under the REAL ID Act, “inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim”). In the absence of credible testimony, Khanjyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, Khanjyan’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements found not credible, and he points to no other evidence in the record to compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Armenia. See id. at 1156-57.

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