
    GANG WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72237.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    Filed Nov. 30, 2009.
    Gang Wu, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
    
      CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Anthony P. Nicastro, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gang Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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 findings of fact, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the omission from Wu’s second asylum application of the hunger strike which took place during his third detention. See id. Wu failed to adequately explain this discrepancy when given the opportunity and it goes to the heart of his claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). Because the IJ had reason to question Wu’s credibility, the IJ reasonably took into account Wu’s failure to provide corroborating evidence in support of his claim of persecution. See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1091-92 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, Wu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, because Wu’s CAT claim is based on the same statements the agency found not credible, and he does not point to other evidence to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.

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