
    Sarbjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-3412.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 26, 2016.
    Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
    Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Justin Mark-el, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, PETER W. HALL, and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Sarbjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of an August 14, 2014, decision of the BIA, affirming an August 28, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sarbjit Singh, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2014), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 28, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 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. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008). The agency may, “[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor 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); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh was not credible.

The agency reasonably relied on Singh’s demeanor, noting that his testimony was vague, unresponsive, and evasive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005); Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir.2003), overruled in part on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 305 (2d Cir.2007). That finding is supported by the record.

The agency’s demeanor finding and the overall credibility determination are bolstered by record inconsistencies. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.2006); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67. Singh testified that he did not ask his political party for a supporting letter .until 2012, but the letter he submitted was dated 2011. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 164, 166-67. Further, Singh testified inconsistently regarding whether he knew the name of the author of that letter, how he discovered the author’s address, and who had obtained the letter. Singh’s attempts to explain these inconsistencies only led to further inconsistencies. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.

Having questioned Singh’s credibility, the agency reasonably relied further on his failure to submit corroborating evidence sufficient to rehabilitate his testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007). The IJ reasonably declined to credit the political party’s letter given Singh’s inconsistent testimony as to how he obtained it. The IJ did not err in giving diminished weight to Singh’s remaining individualized evidence, which consisted only of photocopies of affidavits from interested parties and his birth certificate- See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir.2013); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006).

Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and lack of corroboration findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § • 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). That finding is dispositive of Singh’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.2006).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion to file a late brief is GRANTED, and the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.  