MEMORANDUM **

Baojin Cui, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 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 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.

With respect to Cui’s claims for relief based on religion, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on significant omissions from Cui’s testimony of details regarding his reasons for fearing a return to China. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard). We reject Cui’s contentions that the agency relied on conjecture and inadequately explained its reasoning. In the absence of credible testimony, Cui’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal based on religion fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

With respect to Cuis claims for relief based on China’s coercive population control policy, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Cui failed to demonstrate resistance to the policy. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B); Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner “must provide evidence of resistance” in order to qualify for asylum based on spous’s forced abortion). Accordingly, Cui’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal based on China’s population control policy fail.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Cui failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if removed to China. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.