MEMORANDUM **

Griselda Beatriz Claudio-Alas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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 review de novo claims of due process violations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a request for a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Claudio- *361 Alas’s testimony and her asylum application regarding her residence, employment, and schooling. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of circumstances). Claudio-Alas’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Claudio-Alas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Claudio-Alas’s CAT claim because it is based on the same testimony found not credible, and- she does not point to any other evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See id. at 1156-57.

Finally, the IJ did not abuse her discretion or violate due process in denying Claudio-Alas’s motion for a second continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Sando-vah-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (no abuse of discretion in denying continuance where relief was not immediately available); Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.