
    WEIFEN SUN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72474
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 15, 2017
    Weifen Sun, Pro Se
    Lauren Fascett, Kristen Giuffreda Chapman, Trial Attorney, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, 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: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Weifen Sun, native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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 Sun’s misrepresentations regarding her relationship with Wang. See id. at 1048; Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (an “applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story”); Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate testimony or support independent claim for relief). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case,' Sun’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Sun’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Sun does not point to any evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.

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