SUMMARY ORDER

Zhun Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 8, 2012, order of the BIA affirming the January 24, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Randa Zagzoug denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Zhun Zheng, No. A087 759 878 (B.I.A. Nov. 8, 2012), aff'g No. A087 759 378 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 24, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision 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 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Zheng’s testimony was not credible. The agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence: demeanor, omissions, and failure to corroborate. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).

Demeanor. The IJ found that Zheng’s demeanor called his credibility into question, a finding that commands “particular weight.” Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2005). And the agency was not compelled to accept Zheng’s explanation for his demeanor. Id. at 80.

Omissions. Zheng omitted from his asylum application a number of significant events, including a near-drowning that inspired his conversion to Christianity, his seeking of medical attention after he was arrested and beaten, and authorities’ continued search for him in China. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006) (“We can be still more confident in our review of observations about an applicant’s demeanor where, as here, they are supported by specific examples of inconsistent testimony.”). Moreover, Zheng was unable to explain convincingly why he was not baptized in China.

Corroboration. The determination is further supported by the lack of reliable corroboration. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency did not err in assigning limited or no weight to Zheng’s supporting evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[t]he weight to afford to [an asylum applicant’s] evidence lies largely within the discretion of the IJ.” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). Zheng sought to corroborate his attendance at a church in the United States with a certificate presented at the hearing, but he did not provide testimony from a church official, or testimony or other evidence from his father or the friend who introduced him to the church. Zheng presented unsigned, uncorroborated evidence of his church attendance in China, which appeared to have been prepared for the hearing, and was unable to name the author of the document *58 even though he testified the individual had been the leader of his church in China. See Matter of H-L-H & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 214 & n. 5 (BIA 2010) (rejecting an unauthenticated document obtained for the purposes of the hearing), overruled in part on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012). Finally, letters from Zheng’s mother and friend were properly afforded limited weight given the other problems with Zheng’s credibility. Id. at 215; Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 148 (2d Cir. 2007).

Because Zheng’s withholding of removal and CAT claims depend on the same factual predicate as the asylum claim, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is also dispositive of those forms of relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir . 2005).

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).