
    Subeg Singh BHULLAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72966.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 19, 2011.
    Monika Sud-Devaraj, Law Offices of Monika Sud-Devaraj and Marshall Whitehead, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Lyle Davis Jentzer, Esquire, 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: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Subeg Singh Bhullar, 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 findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Bhullar testified that he was a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann party, attended party rallies, and gave a speech at a rally commemorating the death of martyrs killed at the Golden Temple. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Bhullar’s lack of knowledge concerning the attack on the Golden Temple and the arrests of the Akali Dal president. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004) (affirming an adverse credibility determination based, in part, on the petitioner’s lack of knowledge about the political party of which he was an active participant). In the absence of credible testimony, Bhullar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Bhullar failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to India. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

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