
    XIAO HONG SUN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-0754-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 4, 2010.
    Liu Yu, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director; D. Nicholas Harling, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Present: ROBERT D. SACK, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Xiao Hong Sun, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 30, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the April 16, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip L. Mo-race, which denied Sun’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xiao Hong Sun, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (BIA Jan. 30, 2009), affg No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 16, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision including the portions not explicitly discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008)(“We defer ... to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.”); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110-11 (2d Cir .2008).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The IJ found Sun’s testimony not credible based on: (1) her testimony that her friend, Feng Mei Liu, was the same age, even though Liu’s identity card indicated she was seven years older; (2) her failure to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence; and (3) her inability to respond to questions regarding the details of her claim. We are not compelled to find error in any of these findings, or in the IJ’s refusal to credit the explanations Sun offered. See id; Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005). We also accord particular deference to the IJ’s assessment of Sun’s demeanor, specifically, his observation that Sun appeared to be testifying from a script because she could not provide details not included in her asylum application. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 81 n. 1. Moreover, having called her testimony into question, the IJ reasonably found that Sun failed to provide evidence corroborating her claim. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir.2006).

Accordingly, because each of Sun’s claims was based on the same factual predicate, the IJ reasonably denied Sun’s apjoli-cations for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 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, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.  