
    Qihuan XU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    15-1046
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 25, 2016
    FOR PETITIONER: John Chang, New York, N.Y.
    FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel; Judith R. O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DENNY CHIN, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Qihuan Xu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 24, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming a January 24, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“U”) denying Xu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qihuan Xu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 24, 2015), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 24, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. 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, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008)(per curiam). For asylum applications like Xu’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies in an applicant’s 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 163-64. Here, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence.

The agency reasonably relied on a discrepancy between Xu’s testimony and supporting documents and on false statements he made to procure a student visa. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64; Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2007). Xu testified that he was baptized in October 2011, but the certificate (and his asylum application) stated he was baptized in November 2010. Moreover, Xu admitted that he lied on his application for a student visa when he stated he was a Beijing college student; his asylum application and family register stated that he only completed middle school and he testified that he dropped out of high school. Xu explained that his visa application was completed by an unspecified agency and he did not know what it said. The IJ was not required to credit Xu’s explanation. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).

The agency also reasonably relied on Xu’s failure to adequately corroborate his claim that he practiced Christianity in the United States. Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Xu was given nearly two years to produce witnesses, but provided no witnesses or letters from church members corroborating his church attendance in the United States. Xu stated he could not obtain a witness or letters because his fellow church members were afraid of being arrested’ or removed to China. The record does not compel the conclusion that witness testimony was unavailable. Cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4).

Considering Xu’s false visa application statement, the inconsistency between his testimony and baptism certificate, and his failure to corroborate his claim, the “totality of the circumstances” supports the adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. That determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three forms of relief relied on the same factual predicate. 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 DENIED 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).  