
    JI HUI CAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73621.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 15, 2013.
    David Z. Su, Esquire, Law Offices of David Z. Su, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      OIL, Jennifer Paisner Williams, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ji Hui Cao (“Cao”), 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 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 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Cao’s testimony and his brother’s testimony regarding the circumstances of Cao’s wife’s forced sterilization. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under totality of the circumstances). Because it is not the case that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude” that Cao is credible, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), we uphold the agency’s adverse credibility determination. In the absence of credible testimony, Cao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

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