
    Dembo CAMARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72365.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2012.
    Thomas Vincent Massucci, Law Office of Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Nairi Mary Simonian, Esquire, DOJ-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, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dembo Camara, a native and citizen of Mauritania, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Camara omitted from his asylum application that government forces shot and killed his parents and sister at the time of his own detention, see Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir.2003), and his testimony was vague and lacking in detail, see Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir.1999) (level of specificity appropriate consideration in adverse credibility determination). In the absence of credible testimony, Camara’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Camara’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and he points to no other evidence that shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mauritania, his CAT claim also 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.
     