                                                                            FILED
                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           NOV 25 2015

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS



                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


ZHANBO YANG,                                     No. 13-72530

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A087-706-511

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

               Respondent.


                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted November 18, 2015**

Before:        TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Zhanbo Yang, 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

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction


          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 the inconsistencies between Yang’s testimony and documentary evidence

regarding his family planning claim. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility

determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s totality of the

circumstances standard). Yang’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, Yang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

      Yang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony

found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is

more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          2                                     13-72530
