MEMORANDUM ***
Ming Kang (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judges (“IJ”) denial of Petitioners asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) petitions on adverse credibility grounds. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.
1. Petitioner contends that the BIAs adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. Factual determinations are upheld “if supported by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence on the record as a whole.” Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder, 714 F.3d 1161, 1163 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010)). To reverse an adverse credibility finding, the court “must find that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)) (alteration and emphases omitted). Credibility determinations must take into account the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, and must be supported by “specific and cogent reasons.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009)).
The BIA identified inconsistencies between Petitioners live testimony and his written statement, between Petitioners live testimony and his fathers letter, and between Petitioners live testimony and the information Petitioner gave to the Asylum Officer. The BIA noted inconsistencies in the number and nature of police beatings Petitioner allegedly suffered during his detention. Petitioners alleged history of beatings by police was material to Petitioners asylum application. See id. at 1046-47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioners claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”).
The BIA also noted discrepancies regarding the medical treatment Petitioner allegedly received after his release from detention and regarding Petitioners living situation at the time of his arrest. Petitioner testified that his father, after bailing Petitioner out of jail, took him to a clinic to receive treatment. However, Petitioners father stated in his supporting letter that he took Petitioner home after bailing Petitioner out. Petitioner also testified that he received daily medical treatment for about a week after his release. However, Petitioners written declaration did not include any statements regarding medical treatment.
Petitioner next testified that he lived by himself at the time of his arrest, but Petitioner told the Asylum Officer that he lived with a roommate at the time of his arrest. Petitioners living situation was pertinent to Petitioners claim for asylum because he told the Asylum Officer that he suspected that his roommate was the person who reported him to the police.
The IJ provided Petitioner opportunities to explain the above inconsistencies. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1088 (“[T]he IJ must give the petitioner the opportunity to provide an explanation of an apparent inconsistency.”). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the BIAs conclusion that Petitioners explanations were unpersuasive was supported by substantial evidence.
The agency also determined that Petitioners demeanor negatively impacted his credibility and provided specific examples of Petitioners unresponsiveness. Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The need for deference is particularly strong in the context of demeanor assessments.”). Because the IJs demeanor assessment is given particularly strong deference, and Petitioner has not presented evidence in the record sufficient to overcome this deference, the BIA did not err in relying on a negative demeanor assessment in deeming Petitioner not credible.
We conclude that the BIAs adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioners supporting evidence was insufficient on its own to establish his claim for asylum. Absent credible testimony, and absent sufficient supporting evidence, Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2. The standard for withholding of removal is higher than that for asylum. Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 746 (9th Cir. 2006). Because the adverse credibility determination was fatal to Petitioners asylum claim, it also precluded a grant of withholding of removal. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156; Pedro-Mateo v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000).
3. To obtain CAT relief, a petitioner need only show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured “by or at the instigation of[,] or with at the consent or acquiescence of[,] a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” if removed from the United States. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis omitted) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1)). An adverse credibility determination is, therefore, not necessarily fatal to a CAT claim, which can succeed on the basis of background documentary evidence alone. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048. However, here, Petitioner has failed to identify evidence in the record demonstrating that he would more likely than not be tortured by or at the instigation of a public official if returned to China. Therefore, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the agencys denial of CAT relief.
Petition for review DENIED.