
    LIANPING LU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72271.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 2, 2014.
    Michael A. Rohr, Esquire Law Offices of Michael A. ROHR West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Janice Kay Redfern, Esquire, 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: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this cáse is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lianping Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 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. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies in Lu’s testimony, including the amount that his wife paid for his release from jail and his wedding date. See id. at 1048 (holding that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s rejection of Lu’s explanations for these inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that petitioner’s explanations for “the numerous inconsistencies” in her testimony were “insufficient”). In the absence of credible testimony, Lu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

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