
    JIAN GUO QIU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-2114.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 19, 2015.
    Mouren Wu, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Catherine Bye, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT D. SACK, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., as the Respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jian Guo Qiu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 3, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming a September 10, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying Qiu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jian Guo Qiu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 3, 2014), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 10, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, excluding from consideration the basis for denying relief that the BIA rejected (that the asylum application was untimely). Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 584 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008). The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies within and between his statements and other record evidence “without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Qiu was not credible. The agency reasonably relied on Qiu’s demeanor, noting that his testimony was evasive and unresponsive at times. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005). The agency’s demeanor finding and the overall credibility determination are bolstered by record inconsistencies. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.2006); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67. Qiu’s evidence was inconsistent regarding, among other things, where' his parents were employed, when he learned the reason for his arrest, and whether his witness attended the school where his arrest occurred. Neither Qiu nor his witness provided compelling explanations for those inconsistencies. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.

Having questioned Qiu’s credibility, the agency reasonably relied further on his failure to provide certain corroborating evidence. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007). He did not provide a letter from his ex-girlfriend who was with him at the time of his arrest. A letter from his friend omitted any mention of his arrest, detention, and beating, while the letter from his mother failed to provide any details of those incidents, stating only that Qui had been arrested.

Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and corroboration findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 164-67. That determination is dispositive of Qiu’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.  