
    Amrik Singh AULAKH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70532.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2011.
    Jasprett Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, Amrik Singh Aulakh, Desert Hot Springs, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Charles Canter, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Brooke Maurer, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Amrik Singh Aulakh, a native and citizen of India, petitions 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based upon the inconsistency regarding whether Aulakh knew his brother was involved with militants, which was the basis for Aulakh’s purported mistreatment by police. See id. at 1043. In the absence of credible testimony, Aulakh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir .2003).

Because Aulakh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and Aulakh does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India, his 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     