
    WEIPING JI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70171.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2015.
    Anders Laird Johnson, Trial, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Trial, Oil, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Weiping Ji, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s. adverse credibility determination based on-inconsistencies regarding whether Ji suffered a forced abortion or miscarriage, the cause of her alleged fertility issues, and the level of testing required to make a fertility diagnosis. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Ji’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Ji’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Ji’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and she does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the finding that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to China. 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.
     