SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioners Keshara Anuruddha Dhar-maratne, Yamuna Shanthi Walpola, and Keshya Kadhali Dharmaratne, natives and citizens of Sri Lanka, seek review of a November 8, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming the November 20, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Michael W. Straus denying Keshara Anuruddha Dhar-maratne’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Keshara Anuruddha Dharmaratne, Yamuna Shanthi Walpola, Keshya Kadhali Dharmaratne, Nos. A094 816 655/656/657 (B.I.A. Nov. 8, 2010), aff'g Nos. A094 816 655/656/657 (Immigr. Ct. Hartford Nov. 20, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For asylum applications, such as this one, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. In finding Keshara not credible, the agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between his asylum application, asylum interview, and hearing testimony regarding his claim that he was threatened by members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67. Moreover, a reasonable fact finder would not be compelled to credit Keshara’s explanation for these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). The agency also reasonably relied on implausible aspects of Keshara’s testimony in reaching its adverse credibility determination. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, because Keshara based his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief on the same factual predicate that the agency found not credible, all of his claims necessarily fail. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.