#### LI LIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, *31Respondent.*

15-876

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 13, 2017

FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.

FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director; Andrew B. Insenga, Trial Attorney; Nelle M. Seymour, Law Clerk, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General of the United States Jefferson B. Sessions III is automatically substituted for former United States Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch as Respondent. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as above.

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Li Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 25, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming a May 9, 2013, 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 Li Lin,*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 25, 2015), *aff'g*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 9, 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, “[considering the totality of the circumstances, ... base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant,” as well as inconsistencies in the record evidence, “without regard to whether” those inconsistencies 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 *&*n.2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lin was not credible as to her claim that Chinese family planning officials forced her to abort a pregnancy.

In the present case, the IJ found that Lin failed to present credible evidence in support of her asylum application. In making this determination, the IJ reasonably relied on Lin’s unresponsiveness to questions posed by the IJ and the other litigant in this case. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); *see also Majidi v. Gonzales,*430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). That finding is supported by the record.

The IJ’s finding of unresponsiveness and the overall credibility determination are bolstered by record inconsistencies regarding the timing of events surrounding Lin’s alleged pregnancy. *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 & n.3. Moreover, having questioned Lin’s credibility, the agency reasonably re*32lied further on her failure to submit medical evidence corroborating her pregnancy. *See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,*496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).

Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and lack of corroboration findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That determination is dispositive of Lin’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims are based on the same factual predicate. *See 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, any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.