Dhillon

MEMORANDUM

Surinder Kaur Patti, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because Patti’s testimony was inconsistent with her documentary evidence concerning the events following her release from police detention and leading up to her departure from India, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001), and Patti did not persuasively explain these inconsistencies, see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-42 (9th Cir.2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Patti’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Patti’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not credible, and Patti points to no other evidence to show it is…