
    Pasang Tsering LAMA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70488.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 20, 2015.
    Theodore Cedric Chen, Law Office of Theodore C. Chen, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Yedidya Cohen, Trial, Jennifer Paisner Williams, 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: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. 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

Pasang Tsering Lama, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 BIA’s adverse credibility finding based on Lama’s admitted misrepresentations on prior visa applications and based on the discrepancy between his declaration and his asylum office interview regarding the first ransom note. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under totality of circumstances); Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1180-81 (9th Cir.2011) (lies to immigration authorities supported adverse credibility determination). The agency was not compelled to accept Lama’s explanations for the discrepancy regarding the ransom note. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.2011). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Lama’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, Lama’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same statements the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record that would compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Nepal. 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.
     