
    YONGJUN TANG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73646
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 22, 2018
    Yongjun Tang, Pro Se
    Jeffery R. Leist, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, 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

Yongjun Tang, a native and citizen of China, 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 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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies within Tang’s testimony and between Tang’s testimony and documentary evidence as to his residence in the U.S., and the dates of his marriages and divorce, Tang’s demeanor during the hearing, and the implausibility of Tang’s claimed fear of calling his wife. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”). Tang’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Tang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Further, Tang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     