
    Fnu EFENDI, a.k.a. Efendi Efendi, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74772.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 28, 2010.
    Robert G. Ryan, Esq., Law Offices of Eugene C. Wong, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fnu Efendi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for 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, including adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because the multiple discrepancies and omissions between Efendi’s declaration and his testimony regarding the circumstances of his single incident of harm, including whether he lost consciousness, how he went to the hospital, and when he fled Indonesia, go to the heart of his claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Efendi’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Because Efendi’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the IJ found not credible, and he offers no other evidence the agency should have considered, his CAT claim also fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, we decline to address Efendi’s contentions relating to the merits of his claim because the adverse credibility determination is dispositive. See id.

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.
     