                                                                            FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JAN 27 2016

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



                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


OLESEA URSU,                                     No. 13-72796

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A088-481-938

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

               Respondent.


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

                             Submitted January 20, 2016**

Before:        CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      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


          *
             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). 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.




                                          2                                     13-72796
