
    Gongrun LAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71955.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 12, 2012.
    Gongrun Lan, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lindsay M. Murphy, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, 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

Gongrun Lan, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 protection 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 new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the record does not compel reversal of the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on discrepancies between Lan’s testimony and documentary evidence regarding the friend who introduced him to Christianity and the vague nature of his testimony regarding the details of his wife’s forced abortion. See id. at 1046-47. In the absence of credible testimony, Lan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Further, Lan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same statements the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.

Finally, Lan’s contention regarding the BIA’s streamlined decision is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003) (BIA’s summary affir-mance procedure does not violate due process).

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