OPINION

Shah Afridi Nadir petitions for review of a decision rendered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on September 11, 2008. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

I. Background

Because we write solely for the benefit of the parties, we will set forth only those facts necessary to our analysis. Nadir is a native and citizen of Pakistan. He came to the United States in October 1998 and overstayed his visa. In June 2005, Nadir applied for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He claimed that, beginning in 1997, he suffered persecution and torture in Pakistan on account of his political opinion due to his longtime membership in the Pakistan People’s Party (“PPP”). Among other things, Nadir claims that he was arrested in March 1997 and detained for one month, during which time he was beaten, tortured with electric shocks, and denied food.

After a hearing in November 2006, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Nadir’s application. Nadir appealed. On September 11, 2008, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed the appeal. This timely counseled petition for review followed.

II. Analysis

We generally review only final decisions by the BIA. See Li v. Att’y Gen., 400 F.3d 157, 162 (3d Cir. 2005); Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 548-49 (3d Cir. 2001). However, because the BIA deferred to several aspects of the IJ’s findings and analysis, we have jurisdiction to review both decisions. See Xie v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 239, 242 (3d Cir. 2004). We review legal conclusions de novo, see Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 396, 405 (3d Cir. 2003), and uphold factual determinations if they are supported “by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 561 (3d Cir. 2004). Ultimately, this Court “must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion [that the application should have been granted], but compels it.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

A.

To qualify for withholding of removal, Nadir was required to demonstrate that he “more likely than not” will face persecution if deported to Pakistan. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Nadir attempted to establish his eligibility through testimony that he suffered past persecution in Pakistan on account of his PPP membership.1 See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b) (“The testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.”). A successful showing of past persecution would have entitled Nadir to a *374rebuttable presumption that he would also face future persecution if removed. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(l)(i).

The IJ found Nadir’s testimony to be not credible and denied Nadir’s application for withholding of removal for that reason. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Nadir argues that the IJ and BIA erred because he established past persecution through credible evidence.

Nadir faces a heavy burden. We have recognized that an IJ is normally in the best position to make a credibility determination and is “uniquely qualified to decide whether an alien’s testimony has about it the ring of truth.” Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 597 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1395 (9th Cir. 1985)). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Chen v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215, 221-22 (3d Cir. 2004). We will affirm the adverse credibility finding if it is supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2002). To reverse, the evidence of Nadir’s credibility must be so strong “that in a civil trial he would be entitled to judgment on the credibility issue as a matter of law.” Chen, 376 F.3d at 222.

We have closely reviewed the record and conclude that the adverse credibility determination rests upon substantial evidence. Both the BIA and IJ provided numerous specific and cogent reasons for concluding that Nadir lacked credibility, all of which go to the “heart” of his claims.2 See Berishaj v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 314, 323 (3d Cir. 2004). Specifically, the IJ and BIA identified the following inconsistencies and implausibilities within Nadir’s testimony and/or between Nadir’s testimony and documentary evidence:

(1) Nadir claimed to be “Information Secretary” for his village’s branch of the PPP, but Nadir submitted a letter from Saleem Rahman, the president of the PPP for Nadir’s district, which indicated that Nadir was only a “simple member” of the PPP.3 See A.R. 384.

(2) The Rahman letter states that the military regime “was after him to arrest him,” but does not suggest that Nadir was previously arrested, although it would be reasonable to presume that Rahman would have mentioned a prior arrest. A.R. 92 (IJ decision at 6); A.R. 384.

(3) The Rahman letter indicates that the military regime raided Nadir’s home several times for the purpose of finding and arresting him. A.R. 384. Nadir did not mention any raids in his testimony or written statement.

(4) Nadir testified inconsistently about the sequence of events after his im*375prisonment. Specifically, he first testified that he returned home after his release to recover from his injuries. He later testified that he went to Karachi to hide, then boarded a ship, and only later returned home.

In response, Nadir provides a series of conclusory and unsupported arguments proposing that each credibility finding has an alternative explanation that supports Nadir’s claim rather than undermines it.4 However, the Supreme Court has instructed that “[wjhere there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Nadir has not demonstrated that any of the IJ’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous. His contention that there could be other plausible interpretations of the evidence does not undermine the adverse credibility determination.

“An alien’s credibility, by itself, may satisfy his burden, or doom his claim.” Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 247 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc). In this case, the adverse credibility determination dooms Nadir’s claim. Nadir failed to meet the burden of supporting his application for withholding of removal through credible testimony.5 See Mulanga v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 123, 133 (3d Cir. 2003).

B.

“An applicant for relief on the merits under [the CAT] bears the burden of establishing ‘that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.’” Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 174-175 (3d Cir. 2002). To meet this burden, the applicant must present objective evidence, Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 471 (3d Cir. 2003), including evidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant and relevant information regarding conditions in the country of removal. See Au*376guste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 134 (3d Cir. 2005). A denial of CAT relief, like withholding of removal, is subject to review under the deferential substantial evidence standard. Zubeda, 333 F.3d at 471.

Relying upon our decision in Zube-da, Nadir argues that the IJ and BIA improperly denied his CAT claim by exclusively relying upon the adverse credibility determination. Petitioner’s Brief at 16; Zubeda, 333 F.3d at 476 (“[Credibility for purposes of establishing ... withholding of deportation claims does not defeat [the] ability to ‘meet [the] burden of proof under the Convention Against Torture.”). We disagree. The IJ properly considered “all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture.”6 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3).

The IJ expressly discussed Nadir’s documentary evidence of country conditions in Pakistan, including the most recent State Department Report. See A.R. 94 (IJ Decision at 8). Among other things, the IJ found that the report did not indicate that Nadir’s PPP membership would automatically render him subject to imprisonment in Pakistan, and that, although high-ranking members of the PPP might face such risks, Nadir failed to establish that he is more than a “simple member” of the PPP. See id. In addition, the IJ found that, even if Nadir could establish an increased risk of arrest in Pakistan due to his PPP membership, that would not be sufficient to compel a conclusion that he would face torture in Pakistan. Id.

Thus, based upon the record as a whole, the IJ concluded that Nadir’s proffered evidence “does not establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if removed to Pakistan.” Id. The BIA affirmed the Id’s approach. See A.R. 3 (BIA Decision at 2). We conclude that the decision to deny CAT relief rests upon substantial evidence.

C.

Nadir argues that the IJ violated his Due Process rights because Nadir indicated during the Government’s cross-examination that he was suffering from chest pains. He contends that “this clearly cut Petitioner’s testimony short” and that the IJ should have continued the proceedings rather than concluding them and rendering a decision. The Government responds that Nadir’s claim lacks factual support because, although Nadir initially accepted the Id’s offer to continue the hearing, see A.R. 176-80, when the IJ informed the parties that a continuance would require a de novo hearing,7 both parties agreed to conclude questioning and proceed on the record as it stood. See A.R. 184-85.

We generally lack jurisdiction to review claims that were not administratively exhausted. See INA § 242(d)(1) [8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) ]. Nadir never argued to the IJ or to the BIA that he should have been granted a continuance due to his health problems. For instance, in the hearing before the IJ, Nadir’s counsel did not request a continuance. Instead, counsel expressly indicated to the IJ that he had no further questions to ask Nadir. A.R. 185 *377(“JUDGE TO MR. FELIXON: [D]oes respondent’s counsel want to ask any questions on redirect? MR. FELIXON TO JUDGE: No. I will not ask any more questions.”). Thus, not only does the record seriously undermine the factual underpinnings of Nadir’s Due Process claim, it also demonstrates that Nadir did not previously raise the issue.8 Accordingly, we will dismiss this claim for lack of jurisdiction. See Abdulrahman, 330 F.3d at 594-95.

D.

Finally, the IJ concluded that Nadir was statutorily ineligible for voluntary departure because Nadir “has failed to present the Court with a valid passport.” Nadir claims, without record support, that the Government had his passport in its custody but failed to bring it to the hearing. In response, the Government argues that we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim. Under INA § 240B(f) [8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) ], “[n]o court shall have jurisdiction over an appeal from denial of a request for an order of voluntary departure....”

Pursuant to INA § 242(a)(2)(D) [8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) ], judicial review is not precluded where a petitioner raises a constitutional claim or question of law. Here, Nadir has failed to present a constitutional claim or question of law.9 See, e.g., Karim v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 109, 111-12 (1st Cir. 2005) (no jurisdiction over claim that IJ erroneously concluded that petitioner lacked a valid travel document). We therefore lack jurisdiction over this claim and will dismiss it. INA § 240B(f) [8 U.S.C. § 1229e(f) ].

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the petition for review to the extent that we lack jurisdiction over certain claims. We will deny the petition for review in all other respects.