
    Olesea URSU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72796.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 27, 2016.
    Yevgeniy Chechenin, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner.
    Aaron Nelson, Trial, OIL, 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: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Olesea Ursu, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, 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 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). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the discrepancies and Ursu’s changing account as to whether, she used outside sources to prepare her written asylum application declaration, or completed it solely in her own words. See id. at 1048. Ursu’s explanations do not compel the opposite result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Ursu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Ursu’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements found not credible, and she points to no other evidence that compels the finding it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Moldova. See id. at 1157.

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