
    William Gitau MUNGE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70858.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 15, 2011.
    
      Bakary Fansu Conteh, Esquire, Law Office of Bakary Fansu Conteh, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Christopher Buchanan, Margot Carter, 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: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William Gitau Munge, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s order 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 factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistencies between Munge’s testimony and declaration regarding the dates and the number of times the Mungiki kidnaped him. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001) (inconsistencies which go to the heart of petitioner’s asylum claim support an adverse credibility finding); Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004) (a negative credibility finding will be upheld “so long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [the] claim of persecution”) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Munge’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, because Munge’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony that the BIA found not credible, and he points to no additional evidence that the BIA should have considered regarding the likelihood of torture if he is returned to Kenya, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57, 348 F.3d 1153.

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