
    Jianhua YAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74363
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    FILED May 31, 2016
    Jisheng Li, Attorney, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    . Trade Nicole Jone's, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jianhua Yao, 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 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), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s' adverse credibility determination based on the omissions from Yao’s asylum application that he was handcuffed and beaten unconscious, and that his wife was taken away for a sterilization surgery. See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination was supported by omission in asylum application of facts that were crucial to establishing petitioners were persecuted); see also Shrestha at 1048, (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Yao’s explanation for the omissions does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Yao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).

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