
    ZHENXIN QU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70010.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2014.
    Zhenxin Qu, Hacienda Heights, CA, pro se.
    
      OIL, Lori Warlick, 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: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Zhenxin Qu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming 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 the agency’s factual findings, applying the 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.

Qu claims his company sent him to a labor camp for expressing support for Fa-lun Gong. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on the conflict between Qu’s testimony regarding the dates he was at the labor camp and the document he submitted from his company showing he was to attend a multiday seminar during that same time. See id. at 1048. In the absence of credible testimony, Qu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Qu’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured 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.
     