
    CHUN QI ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-550.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 19, 2013.
    Ai Tong, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Benjamin J. Zeitlin, Trial Attorney; Erin Griffith, Law Clerk, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, GERARD E. LYNCH, and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Chun Qi Zheng, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a January 25, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the August 11, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Douglas Schoppert, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chun Qi Zheng, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 25, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 10, 2010). 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 supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). 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).

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Zheng’s testimony was not credible, based on inconsistencies between his statements in an asylum interview and his testimony at the March 2010 merits hearing. The agency properly considered the totality of the circumstances and determined that the inconsistencies rendered Zheng’s testimony incredible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 166 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam).

Zheng was given the opportunity to explain the inconsistencies, and the agency was not compelled to accept his explanations — chiefly, that he was nervous at the asylum interview. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005). Moreover, the agency reasonably relied upon the record of the asylum interview, which consisted of a type-written account of the questions posed and Zheng’s answers. The asylum interview occurred after Zheng had submitted his application, and he provided his own interpreter. Under these circumstances, the record of the interview was reliable. See Diallo v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 624, 631-32 (2d Cir.2006); see also Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 725 (2d Cir.2009); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 180-81 (2d Cir.2004).

To the extent Zheng argues that the agency violated his right to due process by not considering his corroborating evidence, the claim is without merit. The record establishes that the IJ did review the evidence and acted within his discretion in affording it little weight. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006). The IJ’s refusal to credit unauthentieated documents was not error, where Zheng’s testimony was otherwise not credible. See Zhou Yun Zhang v. U.S. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 78 (2d Cir.2004), overruled on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.2007).

Finally, because Zheng’s withholding of removal and CAT claims depend on the same factual predicate as the asylum claim, the adverse credibility determination also is dispositive of those forms of relief from removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.2005).

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).  