SUMMARY ORDER
Bing Yu Qiu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 10, 2012 order of the BIA affirming the August 16, 2011 decision of Immigration Judge (“LJ”) Alice Segal, denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Bing Yu Qiu, No. A087 873 654 (B.I.A. Oct. 10, 2012), aff'g No. A087 873 654 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 16, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the decision of the BIA. See Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The agency’s findings of fact will be affirmed if they are supported by substantial evidence, and may be overturned only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Singh v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 207, 212 (2d Cir.2009).
*12 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Qiu’s testimony was not credible. Qiu’s testimony regarding when and how she began to practice Christianity was inconsistent with that of her uncle, who was her sole witness. Moreover, Qiu’s uncle conceded that he had fabricated his testimony due to pressure from other family members. The agency reasonably relied on these material inconsistencies to conclude that Qiu was not credible. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008) (noting that “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible” (emphasis in original) (citation omitted)). Thus, Qiu failed to meet her burden of presenting credible evidence in support of her claim. Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 68 (2d Cir.2011) (“An asylum applicant bears the burden of establishing through credible evidence that he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution if removed from the United States.”).
Because Qiu’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief depend on the same factual predicate as the asylum claim, the agency’s adverse credibility determination also disposes of those claims. 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, Qiu’s pending motion for a stay of removal is DENIED as moot.