SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner De En Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 26, 2015 decision of the BIA affirming a July 8, 2013 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re De En Chen, No. A201 295 292 (B.I.A. Jan, 26, 2015), aff'g No. A201 295 292 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 8, 2013). 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 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, “[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances, ... base a credibility determination on the demeanor, .candor, or responsiveness of the applicant,” and on inconsistencies in the record evidence “without regard to whether” those inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64 & n.2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination.

The IJ reasonably relied on Chen’s demeanor, noting that he was evasive and hesitant while testifying. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). That finding is supported by the record.

The IJ’s demeanor finding and the overall credibility determination are bolstered by record inconsistencies regarding when Chen’s church was raided in China, whether the Chinese church that issued his baptism certificate is a government-sanctioned church, and how often he attends church in the United States. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at *20 165-67. In addition, Chen omitted any mention of the incidents that form the bases for his claims during his credible fear interview although he discussed incidents of harm suffered by his family members and asserted a personal fear of harm. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3 (“An inconsistency and an omission are ... functionally equivalent.”); cf. Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). Chen did not provide compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.

Having questioned Chen’s credibility, the agency reasonably relied further on his failure to submit corroborating evidence sufficient to rehabilitate his testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).

Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and lack of corroboration findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). That finding is disposi-tive of Chen’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

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