
    Angeline Mamah FORCHA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70123.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2011.
    Anthony Nwosu, Esq., Law Offices of Anthony Nwosu, Emeryville, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, W. Manning Evans, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    
      Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, 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

Angeline Mamah Forcha, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Forcha is not credible based on the inconsistency between her testimony and her asylum application regarding whether she left the house while she was in hiding. See id. at 1043 (inconsistencies in testimony about events leading up to departure supported adverse credibility determination). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Forcha is not credible because her testimony regarding the location of her April 1997 detention was inconsistent with the letter from her pastor. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding). The IJ reasonably rejected her explanations for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). In the absence of credible testimony, For-cha’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Forcha’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence that the agency found not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not she would be tortured if she returns to Cameroon, Forcha’s 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.
     