Case Name: XIBIN WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-02
Citations: 586 F. App'x 309
Docket Number: No. 12-72139
Parties: XIBIN WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 586
Pages: 309–309

Head Matter:
XIBIN WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72139.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Filed Dec. 2, 2014.
Dennis James Eoffe, Law Office of Dennis Eoffe, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Jesse Matthew Bless, DOJ-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, FISHER, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Xibin Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge's 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 the agency's factual findings, applying the REAL ID Act standards governing adverse credibility determinations. Shrestha, v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1084, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on.inconsistencies in her testimony regarding her inability to register her marriage. See id. at 1048. In the absence of credible testimony, Wu's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Because Wu's CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and she did not establish a clear probability that she will be tortured if she returns to China, her CAT claim also fails. 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.