
    LE LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73460.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 28, 2014.
    Zhiyuan Qian, Law Offices of Gerald Karikari, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Yedidya :Cohen, Trial, OIL, David V.-Bernal, Assistant Director, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Le Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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 relief 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 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Lin’s submission of a fraudulent national identification card, an inconsistency between his testimony and his father’s letter.regarding who had possession of the original card, and an inconsistency between Lin’s testimony and declaration regarding whether the police visited his home after his release from detention. See id. at 1048 (the adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.2011) (explanation was plausible but did not compel acceptance). In the absence of credible testimony, Lin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, because Lin’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China, his 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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     