
    HUA LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70510.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2011.
    Hua Lin, Alhambra, CA, pro se.
    Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Yanal H. Yousef, Trial, 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: 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

Hua 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, Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based upon Lin’s submission of fabricated detention and release warrants and counterfeit birth and marriage certificates, and his failure to provide a compelling explanation to counter evidence that the documents were not genuine. See Desta, 365 F.3d at 745 (fraudulent documents going to heart of claim may justify adverse credibility finding). 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).

Because Lin’s CAT claim is based on evidence the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence that shows it is more likely than not he would 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.
     