
    Angel CRUZ-JUAREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72249
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 23, 2016
    Cornell Eugene Kirby, Law Office of Cornell Kirby, Seattle, WA.
    Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Angel Cruz-Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agen- ay’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.

The BIA found Cruz-Juarez not credible based on discrepancies in his testimony and application as to the events leading to his father’s arrest. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1046-47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the' heart of the petitioner’s claim [under the REAL ID Act], when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”); id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Even if Cruz-Juarez’s explanations for the discrepancies were plausible, they do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony in this case, Cruz-Juarez’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048. In light of our disposition, we do not reach Cruz-Juarez’s remaining contentions.

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