SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Macaire Konan Dowo, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, seeks review of a May 19, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the July 23, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge Noel Anne Ferris, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Con *259 vention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Macaire Konan Dowo, No. A098 480 466 (B.I.A. May 19, 2009), aff'g No. A098 480 466 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 23, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision of the IJ 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 Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d Cir. 2009).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Dowo failed to meet his burden of proof. The IJ did not make an adverse credibility determination. Nevertheless, she reasonably found that Dowo’s testimony alone was insufficient to support his claim. See Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 285-86, 290 (2d Cir. 2000); Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-99. Indeed, although Dowo based his claim on his purported membership in the political party PDCI, 1 the IJ noted that he failed to provide witnesses or other evidence corroborating his membership in that party. In finding that Dowo failed to meet his burden, the IJ reasonably relied on the absence of such evidence, particularly because she gave him ample opportunity to present it. See Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 198.

With respect to the evidence Dowo did submit, the IJ did not err in declining to afford it probative weight. See Diallo, 232 F.3d at 285-86, 290. The IJ identified several discrepancies between Dowo’s testimony and his medical records. Moreover, Dowo admitted to altering one of his PDCI membership cards and the other card contained conflicting dates and lacked detailed information. No reasonable fact finder would credit Dowo’s explanations for these deficiencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).

Because Dowo failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, and his withholding of removal claim was based on the same factual predicate, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). Contrary to Dowo’s assertions, the IJ conducted a separate inquiry regarding his eligibility for CAT relief, and nothing compels us to disturb the IJ’s determination that he was not eligible. See Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 169 (2d Cir. 2004).

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).