SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioners Su Yang Zhing and Jian-Min Yu, natives and citizens of China, seek review of a December 12, 2012 decision of the BIA, which affirmed the May 18, 2011 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan A. Vomacka denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Su Yang Zhing, et al., Nos. A078 962 171/078 951 472 (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2012), aff'g Nos. A078 962 171/078 951 472 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 18, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Because Zhing’s asylum application is not governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency’s adverse credibility determination must be based on “specific, cogent reasons” that “bear a legitimate nexus to the finding,” and any discrepancy must be “substantial” when measured against the record as a whole. Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307-08 (2d Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds as stated in Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2008).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination for three reasons.

First, the IJ reasonably relied on Zhing’s demeanor, noting that her testimony was halting and hesitant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2005).

Second, the IJ reasonably found implausible Zhing’s testimony regarding the series of events leading to an old schoolmate *43 providing her with a sterilization certificate, and specifically Zhing’s testimony that she requested the certificate because she doubted that her schoolmate had been sterilized in China. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 68, 66 (2d Cir. 2007) (“It is well settled that, in assessing the credibility of an asylum applicant’s testimony, an IJ is entitled to consider whether the applicant’s story is inherently implausible.”).

Third, consistent with the factors set forth in Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517 (2d Cir. 2007), the agency reasonably considered the similarities between Zhing’s application and that of another applicant. As in Mei Chai Ye, the IJ’s comparison between the applications was rigorous and careful, and Zhing has failed to establish plagiarism or inaccurate translation, or to offer any other possible innocent explanation for the similarities. Id. at 524-25.

For these reasons, the agency’s adverse credibility determination disposes of Zhing’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, all of which rest on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

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