
    SHULAN LIANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70130.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 26, 2016.
    
    Filed May 2, 2016.
    Justin X. Wang, Baughman & Wang, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial, Oil, 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: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shulan Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her 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). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on a lack of candor, implausibilities, and inconsistencies between Liang’s testimony and the evidence. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination under the totality of circumstances. See id. at 1048; see also Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir.1999) (“In the circumstances, the IJ reasonably resolved her doubt against Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof.”). Liang’s explanations do not compel the contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Liang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

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