
    ZHI KAI TIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-2082-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 3, 2012.
    Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel; Elizabeth D. Kurlan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Zhi Kai Tian, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the April 27, 2011, decision of the BIA affirming the June 1, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) William Van Wyke, denying Zhi Kai Tian’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhi Kai Tian, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 1, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 584 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, such as the application in this case, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in 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)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 168-64.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. In finding Tian not credible, the IJ reasonably relied in part on Tian’s hesitant and unresponsive demeanor while testifying. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005). The IJ’s demeanor finding was further supported by specific examples of contradictory testimony. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.2006) (“We can be still more confident in our review of observations about an applicant’s demeanor where, as here, they are supported by specific examples of inconsistent testimony.”). Indeed, the IJ reasonably found discrepancies between Tian’s testimony and a letter from his mother, for which Tian was unable to provide a compelling explanation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81. Thus, we find no error in the IJ’s denial of Tian’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief on credibility grounds. 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, petitioner’s pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.  