
    XIQIN WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72459.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2012.
    Xiqin Wang, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, James A. Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xiqin Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appqal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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 new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ found Wang not credible for a number of reasons, including the implausibility that she would administer medicine she knew to be unqualified to her son, the inconsistency between her asylum application and her testimony regarding whether she was convicted for anti-government activity and disturbing the social order, and her failure to produce reasonably obtainable corroborating evidence. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1045-48 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”). In the absence of credible testimony, Wang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Wang does not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

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