
    Ming ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    15-135
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 15, 2016
    
      For Petitioner: Gerald Karikari, New York, New York.
    For Respondent: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; Gregory M. Kelch, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
    PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, GERARD E. LYNCH, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Ming Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 18, 2014, decision of the BIA, affirming a November 22, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming Zhang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 18, 2014), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 22, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered 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, “[considering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies in an asylum 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 agency’s determination that Zhang was not credible.

The agency reasonably relied on discrepancies between Zhang’s testimony and his mother’s affidavit regarding his mother’s residence. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67. His mother’s 2012 affidavit stated that she was residing at the address of the house that Zhang testified Chinese government officials had confiscated and demolished in 2009. Zhang’s explanations for this inconsistency are not compelling. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). The veracity of his mother’s affidavit is further impugned by the striking similarities between it and Zhang’s own written statement. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007); Singh v. BIA, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006). Although Zhang testified that he had not shared or discussed his statement with his mother, both statements detail Zhang’s interactions with police using identical paragraph structure and language, and present the information in exactly the same order. Zhang was given an opportunity to explain these similarities as required, see Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 658, 661 (B.I.A. 2015), but his explanation that the similarities were coincidental because he and his mother experienced the same events was not compelling, see Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.

Given the inconsistency regarding his mother’s residence and the striking similarities between his statement and his mother’s affidavit, both of which relate to the basis of his claim, the agency reasonably found Zhang not credible. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. That finding is dispositive of Zhang’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we do not reach the agency’s alternative bases for denying relief. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25, 97 S.Ct. 200, 50 L.Ed.2d 190 (1976).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       We credit Zhang’s explanation that a translation error caused an inconsistency regarding his father's residency in Spain. Nevertheless, remand is unnecessary because the IJ’s other findings constitute substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility determination. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 339 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that remand is futile when we can “confidently predict” that the agency would reach the same decision absent any errors).
     