
    FENG LIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-908.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 1, 2016.
    Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation Counsel; Anthony J. Messhri, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, PETER W. HALL and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Feng Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 6, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming a May 24, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Feng Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 6, 2014), affg No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 24, 2012). 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 decision and the BIA’s decision “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d. 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). Lin does not challenge the finding that his asylum application was untimely or the agency’s denial • of CAT relief; accordingly we review the agency’s adverse credibility determination only as it relates to Lin’s application for withholding of removal.

For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, such as Lin’s, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, 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)(l)(B)(iii); 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 IJ’s determination that Lin’s claim that he was persecuted on account of his Christian faith was not credible. In so finding the IJ relied on Lin’s internally inconsistent testimony, inconsistencies between his testimony and his documentary evidence, and Lin’s demeanor when testifying. Lin originally testified that he was baptized around Easter, in April 2011, but When confronted with his baptism certificate, he confirmed that he was baptized in October of that year. Further, his' explanation for failing to remember changed: he first stated that he could not remember the date because he was experiencing a good deal of stress in the United States;' he later testified that he intentionally did not remember his baptism date because he felt that baptism was just á ritual.

Lin’s testimony also conflicted with his evidence. He testified that he was hospitalized after he was released from detention in China and that a doctor issued a certificate saying that he had soft tissue contusions. However, he omitted this entirely from his asylum application, and his parents did not mention' either his hospitalization or their search for the hospital certificate in the letter they wrote in support of Lin’s application. Further, ■ Lin testified that his parents paid a fine upon his release from detention, but the fine receipt he submitted lists Lin himself as the payer.

A finding concerning a party’s demeanor is “paradigmatically the sort of evidence that a fact-finder is best positioned to evaluate.” Li Zu Guan v. INS, 453 F.3d 129, 140 (2d Cir.2006). Accordingly, we give an IJ’s demeanor finding “particular deference.” Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 104, 113 (2d Cir.2005). Here, -the record -supports the specific example the IJ cited in making that finding — Lin’s long pause followed by a failure to answer a question regarding his baptism..

The totality of the circumstances support the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Because Lin’s claim for withholding of removal depends upon his credibility, the finding that he is not credible is dispositive of his petition. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.  