
    XIANG PING SONG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71825.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2016.
    
    Filed Feb. 16, 2016.
    Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    John Blakeley, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, 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: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Xiang Ping Song seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility finding, which the BIA affirmed. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2011) (explaining the standard of review under the REAL ID Act). Petitioner was inconsistent in his testimony regarding how long Chinese officials detained him and his treatment while in custody. The BIA permissibly concluded that those inconsistencies were not fully explained by faulty translation on the part of the interpreter at Petitioner’s asylum interview. Petitioner conceded that the interpreter correctly translated several key responses during the interview. As the BIA noted, Petitioner’s contention that the interpreter correctly translated almost all of the interview, but grossly misconstrued only the inconsistent parts, is implausible. Moreover, Petitioner’s testimony before the IJ was internally inconsistent as to the number of times Chinese officials arrested him and whether or not they ever arrested him with his father. The BIA, therefore, properly denied Petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.

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