
    Milagros CERROS-HENRIQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Respondent.
    No. 13-73067.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 16, 2015.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Hillel Ryder Smith, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes this.case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Milagros C erro s-Henriquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing an appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations, 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 based on an inconsistency between Cerros-Henriquez’s testimony and written statements as to whether she was present when guerillas assaulted her family. See id. at 1043. We reject Cerros-Henriquez’s contention that there can be no adverse credibility finding where the oral testimony diminishes, rather than enhances the claim. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.2005) (rejecting a per se rule that whenever inconsistencies weaken an asylum claim they cannot serve as the basis of a credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony, Cerros-Henriquez’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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     