
    Mr. VICTORIA, a.k.a. F.N.U. Victoria, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72705.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 19, 2013.
    Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mr. Victoria, a native and citizen of Indonesia, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility determination, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Even if Victoria’s asylum application was timely, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistencies between his asylum application and testimony regarding the attack on his cousin. See id. at 1043 (adverse credibility finding supported where it related to the basis of petitioner’s alleged fear of persecution). Victoria’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Victoria’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, Victoria’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same statements found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Indonesia. 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.
     