
    Zubiar Uddin KHAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70709.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 1, 2010.
    Farshad Owji, Esquire, Owji Law Group, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Oil, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Zubiar Uddin Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 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, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and deny the petition for review.

Even if Khan timely filed his asylum application, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the discrepancies between Khan’s testimony and the letter from the Sanan Academy he submitted regarding the date and other details central to his alleged attack by religious fundamentalists, see Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000), and the agency reasonably found Khan’s explanations for the inconsistencies unconvincing, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). Without credible testimony, Khan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Far ah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Khan’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and he points to no other evidence the agency should have considered, substantial evidence also supports the 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     