SUMMARY ORDER

Ming Liang Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the September 28, 2010, order of the BIA, affirming the February 4, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert Weisel, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming-Liang Zheng, No. A088 726 282 (B.I.A. Sept. 28, 2010), aff'g No. A088 726 282 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 4, 2009). 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 BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See 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, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).

The agency’s adverse credibility determination is based on substantial evidence given inconsistencies in Zheng’s testimony and inconsistencies between his testimony, written application, and record evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Although Zheng testified that police began searching for him in China in December 2006 because of his practice of Falun Gong, he also testified that police only began searching for him after it was revealed that he was a Falun Gong practitioner in January 2007, and a letter from his mother stated that police began searching for him only after he ran away following the public disclosure of his practice of Falun Gong. Because Zheng’s only explanation for these discrepancies — that he was sought in December 2006 for his opposition to pollution at a local factory and sought in January 2007 for his practice of Falun Gong— did not address why he testified that he was sought by the police in December 2006 *37 for his practice of Falun Gong, the agency was not compelled to accept this explanation. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). In addition, contrary to Zheng’s argument, because none of the evidence Zheng provided rehabilitates his inconsistent testimony regarding whether police searched for him in December 2006 because of his Falun Gong practice, the record does not compellingly suggest that the agency ignored any record evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n. 17 (2d Cir. 2006). Based on the agency’s reasonable adverse credibility determination, it did not err in denying Zheng asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as these claims shared the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding of removal); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005) (CAT).

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).