
    MINGYU DU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-71876
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 21, 2017
    Mingyu Du, Pro Se
    OIL, Jennifer A. Singer, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office , of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE,. Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mingyu Du, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 protection 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). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Du’s testimony and documentary evidence as to the reason he lost his job in China, whether the police informed him how long he would be detained, and his intention to travel outside of China prior to his arrest. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Du’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Du’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Du’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Du does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of China. Id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     