
    QUN LI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70011.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 22, 2016.
    Daniel Fong, Fong Law Group, Inc., Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Judith Roberta O’Sullivan, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Gircuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Qun Li, a native and citizen of China, 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 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), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Li’s voluntary return to China for which Li did not provide a compelling reason. See id. at 1048; Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1018-19 (9th Cir.2008) (voluntary return trips supported adverse credibility determination). In the absence of credible testimony, Li’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir.2014).

Finally, Li’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and Li does not point to any other evidence that compels the conclusion it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

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