
    YANHUA CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74380.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 22, 2010.
    Joseph S. Porta, Esquire, Law Offices of Cohen Porta & Kim, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.
    David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, John J.W. Inkeles, Esquire, Trial, Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, 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: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. 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

Yanhua Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her 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 adverse credibility findings. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Chen’s omission of her arrest and detention on her visa application goes to the heart of her claim of persecution, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001), and Chen’s documentary evidence does not overcome this inconsistency, see Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir.2005) (documentary evidence did not compel a contrary conclusion). In the absence of credible testimony, Chen’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Because Chen’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not credible, and she points to no evidence showing it is more likely than not she will be tortured in China, her CAT claim also fails. 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.
     