
    Fitim ADEMI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-4379-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 4, 2011.
    
      Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel; Kristin K. Edison, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, josé a. cabranes and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner, Fitim Ademi, a native of the former Yugoslavia and citizen of Serbia, seeks review of a September 28, 2009, decision of the BIA affirming the May 28, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson pretermitting his application for asylum as untimely and denying his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Fitim Ademi, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 28, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 28, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

As an initial matter, we note that Ademi explicitly declined to challenge the IJ’s pretermission of his asylum application as untimely. We therefore consider only the agency’s denial of Ademi’s applications for withholding of removal and CAT relief based on an adverse credibility determination.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The IJ reasonably found Ademi not credible because his testimony regarding the specific incidents of harm he suffered was inconsistent with his asylum application, a letter from his parents, and the country conditions evidence in the record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 166-67 (2d Cir. 2008). Moreover, no reasonable factfinder would have been compelled to credit his explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005). Additionally, the IJ’s unchallenged finding that Ademi appeared unsure of his own testimony provided further support for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 81 n. 1; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).

In light of the adverse credibility determination, the agency did not err in denying Ademi’s applications for withholding of removal and CAT relief because the only evidence that Ademi would be persecuted or tortured depended on his credibility. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 157 (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).  