SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner, Jin Yu Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 24, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the November 6, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. DeFonzo denying petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jin Yu Lin, No. A 095 710 068 (B.I.A. July 24, 2009), aff'g No. A 095 710 068 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 6, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Jigme Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well-established. Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. In making that determination, the IJ found that Lin: (1) testified inconsistently regarding the incidents that formed the basis of her claim; and (2) failed to provide sufficient corroboration. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, holding that the IJ properly identified material inconsistencies and omissions which supported the adverse credibility determination. We are not compelled to conclude to the contrary. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).

Although Lin argues that she adequately explained her inconsistent testimony, no reasonable factfinder would have been compelled to credit her explanations. See id. Moreover, the IJ reasonably declined to afford Lin’s corroborative evidence weight because the friends who wrote letters were not available for cross-examination and because the letters were insufficient to overcome the numerous inconsistencies and omissions in Lin’s testimony. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding that the weight afforded to the applicant’s evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the agency).

*119 Inasmuch as each of Lin’s claims share the same factual predicate, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is fatal to her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See 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 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).