
    HUI ZHEN WANG-ZHANG, Also Known as Hui Zhen Wang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-1970-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 10, 2010.
    Henry Zhang, Zhang & Associates, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director; Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division; Heather S. Navarro, Law Clerk, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Hui Zhen Wang-Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 14, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the June 14, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hui Zhen Wang-Zhang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 14, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jun. 14, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

We review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. 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. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The IJ found Wang-Zhang not credible because: (1) although she testified that she was required to report to the public security bureau on three to four occasions, neither her asylum application nor her mother’s letter made any such assertion; (2) although she testified that the police came to her home to ensure she was not practicing Christianity, her asylum application contained no such allegation; and (3) her testimony that her parents were able to continue practicing Christianity despite continued police visits to her home was implausible. Wang-Zhang does not challenge these latter two discrepancies, which stand as valid bases for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007).

Wang-Zhang argues that she adequately explained the discrepancy regarding whether she reported to the public security bureau. Although she asserts that the inconsistency was “nothing more than a misunderstanding in the semantics of the questions posed by the attorney for the Department of Homeland Security,” a reasonable factfinder would not have been compelled to credit this explanation. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005); see also Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167-68 (2d Cir.2007).

In light of Wang-Zhang’s inconsistent and implausible testimony, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Inasmuch as Wang-Zhang was unable to meet her burden for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the higher burden required for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006).

Although Wang-Zhang sets forth the standard for CAT relief in her brief before this Court, she does not challenge the basis of the IJ’s denial of CAT relief — that she did not testify that she would be subject to anything amounting to torture — or otherwise argue that any evidence established a likelihood of torture upon return to China. Accordingly, any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT relief should be deemed waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the petitioner’s pending motion for a stay of removal as moot. 
      
      . The IJ also noted other inconsistencies in Wang-Zhang’s testimony. Because he found these discrepancies "not significant,” and appears not to have based his credibility finding on them, we regard them as immaterial for purposes of this petition.
     