
    ZHEN PAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70981
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 24, 2016
    Marvin M. Gong, Attorney, Law Offices of Harper & Gong, South Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Robert Dale Tennyson, Jr., Ph.D., Trial Attorney, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Zhen Pan, a 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 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 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 on inconsistencies between Pan’s testimony and documentary evidence as to the date of her ultrasound examination and omissions of the neighborhood committee’s threats. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Pan’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Pan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Pan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Pan does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a pub-lie official in China. See Farah, 348 F.3d 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.
     