
    RAMKUARI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71284.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 4, 2011.
    
      Taranjeet Kaur Buttar, I, Esquire, Patrick Ontiveros Cantor, Esquire, Buttar & Cantor, LLP, Tukwila, WA, for Petitioner.
    Donald Anthony Couvillon, Esquire, OIL, Ari Nazarov, 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: CLIFTON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, Brooklyn, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramkuari, a native and citizen of Fiji, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing an appeal from the denial of her claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We note that she does not seek review of the denial of her application for asylum, which was dismissed as time-barred. We conclude that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination and deny the petition for review.

The BIA provided “specific, cogent reasons” for affirming the determination and discrediting Ramkuari’s testimony under the terms of the REAL ID Act. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.2010); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.2011). In her hearing testimony and supplemental declaration Ramkuari testified about many purported events of persecution in addition to those she had previously identified. See id. at 973-74. She also failed to provide corroborating evidence of her claims, and she frequently gave non-responsive answers. We are not persuaded by Ramkuari’s argument that non-responsive answers unrelated to her claims of persecution in Fiji could not support an adverse credibility determination; the statute as amended in 2005 by the REAL ID Act states that adverse credibility determinations may be made whether inconsistencies go to the heart of an applicant’s claim or not. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii).

With her own testimony discredited, Ramkuari’s claim for CAT relief rested entirely upon the Country Reports, and they did not establish that she faced a probability of torture upon return to Fiji which would warrant CAT protection. To the contrary, Ramkuari’s allegations of widespread torture of Indo-Fijians were undermined by country reports and other information on record.

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