
    Edgar Rolando GARCIA MORALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74809.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2012.
    
    Filed March 19, 2012.
    Edgar Rolando Garcia Morales, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    
      Oil, Ilissa M. Gould, Sabina M. Lofty, U.S. Department Of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAS-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edgar Rolando Garcia Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance. Sandova-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1245-46 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based upon inconsistencies between Garcia Morales’ asylum applications, asylum interview, and testimony regarding the basis for his claim. See Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391, 393-94 (9th Cir.1997). Garda-Morales’ assertion that the IJ misinterpreted or failed to address his explanation is belied by the record. In the absence of credible testimony, Garcia Morales’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Garcia Morales did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984, 988-89 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, his CAT claim fails.

Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Garcia Morales’ motion for a continuance and declining to remand to allow him to obtain the testimony of the asylum officer who interviewed him. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247.

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