
    ZHONG JIAN YANG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Respondent.
    No. 07-2599-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 11, 2008.
    Stuart Altman (Zhong Jian Yang, pro se, on the brief), New York, N.Y., for petitioner.
    Thomas Dupree, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Peter D. Keisler, Barry J. Pettinato, and Robbin K. Blaya, on the brief), Washington, D.C., for respondent.
    PRESENT: Hon. PIERRE N. LEVAL, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, and Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales as Respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Zhong Jian Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the May 21, 2007 decision of the BIA affirming the October 8, 2005 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Theresa Holmes-Simmons denying Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In Re Zhong Jian Yang, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 21, 2007), aff'g No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 3, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts of this case, its procedural posture, and the decision below.

The IJ made an adverse credibility determination, which the BIA adopted and supplemented. Accordingly, we review the decision of the IJ as adopted and supplemented by the BIA. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). This Court reviews the IJ’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard, meaning that the IJ’s findings must be upheld “unless we conclude that a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 73 (2d Cir.2004), overruled, in part on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309 (2d Cir.2007); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (codifying this standard). We will, however, vacate and remand for new findings if the agency’s reasoning or its fact-finding process was sufficiently flawed. See Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 406 (2d Cir.2005). Here, we conclude that the IJ found facts adequate to support her adverse credibility determination.

Accordingly, we DENY the petition for review.  