
    WANG GUANG-XIONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-2452.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 8, 2014.
    Gerald Karikari, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel; Liza S. Murcia, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Wang Guang-Xiong, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a May 28, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“I J”) January 26, 2012, denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wang Guang-Xiong, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 28, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 26, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006); Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam).

For asylum applications, like Guang-Xiong’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on the applicant’s demeanor and responsiveness, as well as inconsistencies in the applicant’s 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)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination.

In making its adverse credibility determination, the agency cited several inconsistencies and incidents of problematic demeanor. However, in his brief, Guang-Xiong argues only that the agency erred in its finding related to his testimony regarding his identification card. Therefore, we limit our review to this single challenge to the adverse credibility determination. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).

The record supports the agency’s finding that Guang-Xiong’s testimony regarding his identification card was inconsistent. First, Guang-Xiong testified that he had personally retrieved the identification card in the record from a government office before a twelve-day detention that began on June 8, 2008. However, when questioned how that was possible when the card was dated June 11, 2008 — a date when he was still in detention — Guang-Xiong testified that he had two identification cards. This explanation, however, did not rehabilitate his testimony. It did not explain how or why the card was issued while he was in detention or why he testified that he had personally retrieved a card dated June 11 from a government office prior to June 8. Consequently, the agency was not compelled to credit this explanation. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Given the IJ’s finding regarding Guang-Xiong’s problematic demeanor, and the inconsistencies in his testimony and evidence related both to the identification card, which calls his detention into question, and to his practice of Christianity, which casts doubt on any fear of future persecution, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, and is dispositive of Guang-Xiong’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (holding that the court defers to the agency’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”); see also 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, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.  