PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROGER J. MINER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioners Goberdhan Ramsaran and Donna Seecharan, both natives and citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, seek review of a June 26, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the February 19, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson, denying their applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ramsaran and Seecharan, Nos. A097 532 772/888 (B.I.A. June 26, 2008), aff'g Nos. A097 532 772/888 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 19, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the 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); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. 2 As the IJ found, Ramsaran’s testimony conflicted with Seecharan’s. Ramsaran testified that he had a fight with a police officer one night and was arrested the evening of the next day, whereas Seecharan testified that the altercation occurred during the day, and that Ramsaran was arrested the evening of that same day. The agency had authority to rely on this discrepancy in finding Petitioners not credible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).

Having called Petitioners’ testimony into question, the IJ reasonably drew an adverse inference from their failure to provide any evidence corroborating their claim. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Furthermore, the IJ reasonably declined to credit Petitioners’ explanations for the absence of such evidence. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).

Since Petitioners’ claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief were based on the same factual predicate, the adverse credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes success on those claims. *208 See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we need not reach the IJ’s alternative burden of proof findings.

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).