
    Tony Agung VIANTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71484.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 21, 2011.
    
      Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Karen Y. Stewart, Esquire, ANH-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los An-geles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes dais case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tony Agung Vianto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on the omission from his declaration that the individual he fears is now on the police force. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004). We lack jurisdiction to consider Vianto’s contention that the inconsistency was due to his cultural background and language or cultural differences, because he did not exhaust these arguments before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). In the absence of credible testimony, Vian-to’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

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