
    ZHENMING WENG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-4548.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 14, 2015.
    
      Lewis G. Hu, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; Kristin Moresi, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, DENNIS JACOBS, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Zhenming Weng, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the November 6, 2013 decision of the BIA affirming the April 11, 2012 decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Zhenming Weng, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 6, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 11, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “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 Wong’s, governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[considering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s “demean- or, candor, or responsiveness,” the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008). ‘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, 534 F.3d at 167.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Weng was not credible. The agency reasonably relied in part on Wong’s demeanor, noting that he paused for lengthy periods while testifying and that his testimony was vague and stilted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113, 116 (2d Cir.2006). That finding is supported by the hearing transcript.

The agency’s demeanor finding and the adverse credibility determination as a whole are further bolstered by record inconsistencies with respect to when Weng was detained by Chinese authorities, the medical treatment he received after his release from custody, arid whether or how many times the police came looking for him in China after he fled to the United States. The agency was not compelled to credit Weng’s explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.2005).

Given the demeanor and inconsistency findings, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. That determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because those claims were based on the same factual predicate. See 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).  