
    Zhaneta Nedialkova IVANOVA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72051.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 21, 2011.
    Patrick Ontiveros Cantor, Esquire, But-tar & Cantor, LLP, Tukwila, WA, for Petitioners.
    Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, Imran Raza Zaidi, Trial, DOJ-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: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Zhaneta Nedialkova Ivanova and her family, natives and citizens of Bulgaria, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 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, Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because the discrepancies between petitioners’ testimony, a medical document, and a witness’ testimony regarding Aleksandar Petkov Ivanova’s fractured pelvis go to the heart of petitioners’ claim, see id. at 1058, and petitioners’ explanation does not compel a contrary conclusion, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Further, because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same statements found to be not credible, and petitioners do not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely than not that they will be tortured if returned to Bulgaria, their CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.

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