
    Francisco ALVARO-IRAETA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71287.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 4, 2015.
    Marisa-Andrea Moore, Marisa-Andrea Moore, Burbank, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Allison Frayer, Ilissa M. Gould, Trial, 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: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The 90-day stay of proceedings in this case expired on July 7, 2015. Thus, respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.

Francisco Alvaro-Iraeta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board- of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) 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 factual findings, including adverse credibility findings. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistencies between Alvaro-Iraeta’s asylum application and his testimony regarding events in El Salvador and his reason for fleeing. See Ceballos-Castillo v. INS, 904 F.2d 519, 520 (9th Cir.1990); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2011). We reject Alvaro-Iraeta’s contention that the IJ failed to properly consider his explanations for the inconsistencies. See Zamanov, 649 F.3d at 974. In the absence of credible testimony, Alvaro-Iraeta’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Alvaro-Iraeta does not raise any arguments challenging the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned).

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