
    SHAN HUI XUE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-2094.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 27, 2014.
    Adedayo O. Idowu, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney, General; Daniel E. Goldman, Assistant Director; Mona Maria Yousif, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Shan Hui Xue, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of an April 30, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) August 23, 2011, denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shan Hui Xue, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 30, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 23, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. DOJ, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that an asylum application is untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Although we retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Xue challenges only the weight accorded certain evidence. Accordingly, he has not raised a colorable question of law or constitutional claim. We therefore dismiss the petition as to asylum.

We do have jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief on credibility grounds. For applications, like Xue’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements and other record evidence “without regard to whether” those inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 163-64 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam). Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision.

As Xue’s withholding of removal and CAT claims share the same factual predicate, the adverse credibility determination is dispositive of both. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155-57 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 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 DISMISSED 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).  