
    ZHENSHU JIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72722
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 22, 2017
    Zhenshu Jin, Pro Se
    Kurt Barrett Larson, Senior Litigation Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Jeremy M. Bylund, Trial Attorney, DOJ — 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: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Zhenshu Jin, a native and citizen of China, 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 and withholding of removal. 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 as to the reason why Jin mailed Christian materials to China and the date when her daughter left China, and the IJ’s demeanor finding. See id. at 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir. 2014) (giving special deference to findings based on demeanor). Jin’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Jin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     