
    CHUNYU HU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70125.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 20, 2013.
    Chunyu Hu, San Gabriel, CA, pro se.
    Oil, Zoe Jaye Heller, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Chunyu Hu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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, 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 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 we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on an omission from his written application of any mention that police were looking for him at his home, and on the IJ’s negative assessment of Hu’s demeanor. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir.2011) (omission cast doubt on petitioner’s credibility); Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999) (“special deference” given to credibility determinations based on demeanor). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Hu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Hu’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found not credible and he does not point to any evidence that shows it is more likely than not he will face torture if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.

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