
    Claudia Dolores TOBAR-ASCENCIO; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73450.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 25, 2012.
    
    Carlos Ramirez, Esquire, Law Office of Noemi G. Ramirez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ].
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Claudia Dolores Tobar-Ascencio and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed 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 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Tobar-Ascencio’s testimony and her asylum application regarding whether her father had been kidnapped and whether he was deceased. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”). The agency properly rejected Tobar-Ascencio’s explanations for these inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007) (upholding agency finding that explanations were insufficient). In the absence of credible testimony, Tobar-Ascencio’s asylum claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review Tobar-Ascencio’s contention regarding waiver of her right to legal counsel because she failed to raise this claim to the BIA. See Bamn v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (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.
     