
    JIANGUO XING, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72957.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Decided Nov. 24, 2015.
    Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Yamileth G. Davila, Trial, OIL, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jianguo Xing, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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, 1039-1040 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the omission from Xing’s declaration of his second detention and fine, and inconsistencies in his testimony about whether his wife was required to be have an IUD. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s totality of the circumstances standard); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.2011) (omitted incidents of arrest and mistreatment supported adverse credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony, Xing’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Xing’s contentions regarding a lack of opportunity to explain and his related due process claim because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not presented below).

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