
    JIN CHUN LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-3134-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 17, 2011.
    
      Farah Loftus, Century City, CA, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; Janice K. Redfern, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, RICHARD C. WESLEY and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jin Chun Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a July 19, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the October 14, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip L. Morace denying Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jin Chun Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 19, 2010), affg No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 14, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

For asylum applications, such as this one, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” and inconsistencies in his or her statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). Here, the agency found that Lin was not credible based on inconsistencies between his testimony and his asylum application, long pauses in his testimony, and unresponsive answers. The record supports these findings. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005) (noting this Court’s deference’s to an IJ’s findings regarding an asylum applicant’s demeanor because the IJ has “the unique advantage ... of having heard directly from the applicant” (internal citations and quotations omitted)). While Lin contends that these pauses and non-responsive answers were a result of a confusing line of questioning by the government attorney, the record indicates that the pauses and non-responsive answers continued throughout his testimony, not only as a response to the confusing questioning.

Having found Lin not credible, the agency reasonably expected him to rehabilitate his testimony by providing corroboration of his wife’s alleged abortion or medical records supporting his claim that he was beaten by family planning officials. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007) (finding that once an asylum applicant’s testimony has been called into question, an IJ can expect corroboration). Lin asserts in his brief that documentation of his wife’s abortion was not available because the abortion was involuntary, but counsel’s unsupported assertions in a brief do not constitute evidence, see INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188 n. 6, 104 S.Ct. 584, 78 L.Ed.2d 401 (1984), and Lin did not present this argument to either the IJ or the BIA on appeal.

Together, the problems the agency identified in Lin’s testimony and his failure to provide sufficient corroboration provide substantial evidence for its adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). Because Lin’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief were all based on the same factual predicate, the agency’s adverse credibility determination forecloses all relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).  