MEMORANDUM **
Hongtai Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his 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 agencys factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Although the government contends that we lack jurisdiction to consider Yangs arguments concerning the agencys adverse credibility determination because he failed to develop those arguments in his brief to the BIA, “[i]t is wellestablished that we may review any issue addressed on the merits by the BIA, regardless of whether the petitioner raised it before the agency.” Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 914 (9th Cir. 2018).
Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination, including Yangs prior voluntary return from the United States to China without having applied for asylum and his inconsistent testimony concerning his obligation to report to the police in China after his purported arrest and hospitalization in 2007. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Lohos two voluntary returns to her home country support the IJs adverse credibility finding ․”); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he record does not compel the finding that the IJs unwillingness to believe this explanation ․ was erroneous.”). In the absence of credible testimony, Yangs claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agencys denial of Yangs claim for CAT protection because it was based on the same evidence that the agency found not credible, and Yang does not point to other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.