
    XUE ZHUI GUAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-4195 NAC.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 8, 2014.
    
      Ai Tong, Law Office of Ai Tong, Esq., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel; Wendy Benner-Leon, Trial 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

Xue Zhui Guan, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of an October 23, 2013 decision of the BIA, affirming the January 24, 2012 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

For asylum applications like Guan’s, governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility determination 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). “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.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008) (per cu-riam).

Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. The agency reasonably relied in part on Guan’s demeanor, noting that his testimony was delivered with a blank stare and was at times unresponsive. See Shu Wen Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 381 (2d Cir.2007) (per curiam). The agency’s demeanor finding and the overall credibility determination were supported by record inconsistencies related to the number and identity of the students who attend church classes with Guan. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.2006). Guan testified that he had attended a weekly baptism class at his New York church for approximately two years and that the class consisted of ten to twenty different students each week. But his priest testified that the class consisted of the same forty to fifty students each week. Guan also testified that the class instructor was female, while his pastor stated that the instructor was male. While the IJ did not question Guan about some of these inconsistencies, the inconsistencies were obvious, and Guan could have explained them when he was recalled to the stand following his priest’s testimony. See Ming Shi Xue v. BIA, 439 F.3d 111, 122 & n. 13 (2d Cir.2006).

The agency also reasonably found it implausible that Guan was unable to identify a single member of his church other than his priest and his class instructor, particularly given his priest’s testimony that Guan was friendly and well-known in the church community and that member names were called out at the beginning of Guan’s weekly church classes. See Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63, 66-67 (2d Cir.2007). The IJ was not compelled to credit Guan’s explanation that he rarely spoke to other members because it conflicted with his priest’s testimony. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005).

Having questioned Guan’s credibility, the agency reasonably relied further on his failure to provide certain credible evidence corroborating his claim or rehabilitating his testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007) (per cu-riam). Given the demeanor, inconsistency, implausibility, and corroboration findings, the totality of the circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. That determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT as those claims are based on the same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (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 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).  