
    Jefri PAULUS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71296.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2012.
    Gihan L. Thomas, Esquire, Law Offices of Gihan L. Thomas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Gregory Michael Kelch, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: LEAVY, 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

Jefri Paulus, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir.2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based on the omission from his asylum application of the kidnappings of Paulus and his wife. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir.2011) (omitted incidents of arrest and mistreatment supported adverse credibility finding). Further, the record does not compel acceptance of the explanation that Paulus prepared his application pro se, without any help. See id. at 974. In addition, to the extent Paulus otherwise contends he was not afforded an opportunity to explain omissions in his application, we lack jurisdiction to review Paulus’s contention because he did not raise it to the BIA. See Ban-on v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not presented below). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Paulus’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Paulus’s CAT claim is based on the same statements the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Indonesia. See id. at 1156-57. Accordingly, Paulus’s CAT claim fails.

Finally, in light of our conclusions regarding the agency’s adverse credibility finding, we reject Paulus’s contention that we cannot meaningfully review this case.

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