
    Liu Zhu ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73597
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    Filed June 6, 2016
    Annin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Benjamin Zeitlin, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Liu Zhu Zhang, 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 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in Zhang’s testimony regarding his house church attendance in China, inconsistencies between his testimony and documentary evidence regarding his church attendance in the United States, and his non-responsive and evasive demeanor. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). In the absence of credible testimony, Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, Zhang’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence that was found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with 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.
     