
    Jai DEEP, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70597.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
    Pardeep S. Grewal, Esquire, Law Offices of Pardeep S. Grewal, Castro Valley, CA, for Petitioner.
    Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, OIL, Rosanne Perry, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jai Deep, a native and citizen of India, 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, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based upon Deep’s failure to mention in his asylum application that Indian police continued to frequently visit his parents’ home since his February 2002 arrest. See id. at 962-63, 964 (adverse credibility determination is supported where at least one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim). In the absence of credible testimony, Deep’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Deep’s CAT claim is based on testimony the agency found not credible, and there is no evidence in the record that compels a finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim 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.
     