that Huang’s testimony was inconsistent with a medical report regarding an injury he allegedly sustained while in detention. Taken as a whole, these findings were sufficient to support the IJ’s conclusion that Huang was not credible. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008). Because the only evidence of a threat to Huang’s life or freedom depended upon his credibility, the adverse credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes success on his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief where all three claims were based on the same factual predicate. 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); cf. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 184-185 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for
holding that the agency may not deny a cat claim solely on the basis of adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context where the cat claim did not turn upon credibility holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum holding that defeat of asylum claim on credibility grounds does not necessarily preclude relief on a cat claim holding it improper to deny cat relief based on adverse credibility finding where objective documentary evidence establishes likelihood of torture holding that a negative credibility finding for the purposes of an asylum claim does not preclude relief under cat where documented country conditions corroborate a claim of torture