
    Jianhua YAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73514
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 24, 2016
    Thomas J. Tarigo, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, OA.
    Dana Michelle Camilleri, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jianhua Yan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1084, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistencies as to who owned the house that was allegedly demolished, and when or whether it was demolished at all. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). We reject Yan’s contention that he did not have an adequate opportunity to explain, and his contention that the BIA did not consider his explanation. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Yan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Yan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Yan does not point to any other evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     