
    Surinder Kaur PATTI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71404.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
    Inna Lipkin, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, 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

Surinder Kaur Patti, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because Patti’s testimony was inconsistent with her documentary evidence concerning the events following her release from police detention and leading up to her departure from India, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001), and Patti did not persuasively explain these inconsistencies, see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-42 (9th Cir.2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Patti’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Patti’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not credible, and Patti points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to India, her CAT claim fails. 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.
     