SUMMARY ORDER

Xiang Hua Weng, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a May 21, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“U”) May 22, 2012, denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xiang Hua Weng, No. A2 01 151 537 (B.I.A. May 21, 2013), aff'g No. A201 151 537 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 22, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Court should 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, like Weng’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements and other record evidence 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 adverse credibility determination. In finding Weng not credible, the agency reasonably relied on the fact that her testimony was inconsistent with statements made during a credible fear interview regarding when and whether she practiced Christianity in China. In making this finding, the agency reasonably concluded that the record of Weng’s credible fear interview was sufficiently reliable: it consisted of a typed account of the questions asked and answered with the assistance of a translator, which reflected that the interviewer explained the reasons for the interview, and posed questions designed to elicit information regarding a potential asylum claim. See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). The record of Weng’s border interview also exhibits these hallmarks of reliability. Id.; see also Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 179-80 (2d Cir. 2004).

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).