NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZHONGDE LI, No. 13-71268 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-447-947 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 15, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Zhongde Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Li’s admitted misrepresentations as to his residence. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”); Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An asylum applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story.”). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Li’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Li’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel a finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-71268