
    JUNTIAN ZHA; Ying Liu, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72436.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 23, 2011.
    Kevin G. Long, Law Offices of Long and Associates, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioners.
    Oil, Kathleen Kelly Volkert, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juntian Zha and Ying Liu, natives and citizens of China, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their 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 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ found Zha not credible for several reasons, including concerns with Zha’s demeanor and implausibilities regarding his decision to apply for asylum. In light of the IJ’s findings, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and they point to no other evidence the IJ should have considered, substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. 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.
     