
    Francisco C. CAYETANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70889.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 12, 2011.
    Amancio M. Liango, Jr., Law Offices, Dae Hee Kim, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Patrick James Glen, Esquire, Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco C. Cayetano, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Cayetano admitted his original asylum application was not truthful regarding the incident that allegedly prompted his persecutors to abduct and threaten him. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (9th Cir.2005) (lying on an asylum application is an “indication of dishonesty”); Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-42 (9th Cir.2007) (discrepancies “regarding the event that allegedly spurred [the persecutors] to threaten [petitioner] goes to the heart of his persecution claim and is not trivial”). In the absence of credible testimony, Cayetano’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

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