
    Mariama BAKAYOKO, aka Ina Niang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 13-449(L), 13-2858(CON) NAC.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 20, 2015.
    Lawrence Spivak, Jamaica, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, John W. Blakeley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jesse D. Lorenz, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.-
    Present: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review are DENIED.

Mariama Bakayoko, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, seeks review of a January 8, 2013 decision of the BIA affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“LI”) August 30, 2011 decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mariama Bakayoko, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 8, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 30, 2011). Bakayoko also seeks review of a June 26, 2013 BIA decision denying her timely motion to reopen. In re Mariama Bakayoko, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 26, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision of the IJ as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). For applications like Bakayoko’s, governed by the' REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in. her statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim,” so long as they reasonably support an inference that the applicant is not credible. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008). We “defer ... to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make” such a ruling. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

Upon review of the record and the relevant law, we conclude that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was reasonably based on inconsistencies in Bakayoko’s evidence and testimony. The IJ found that Bakayoko made “serious omissions” in her asylum application by not mentioning the circumcision of her daughters or her fear of being forced into an arranged marriage. Although the IJ appears to have misstated when Bakayoko eventually did raise these issues, the IJ was correct that Bakayoko did not raise the issues in her asylum application. Moreover, the IJ found Ba-kayoko’s demeanor “troubling,” noting inconsistencies in her testimony as to when her daughters were circumcised. During direct examination, Bakayoko stated that her two daughters were 22 years old and 19 years old when circumcised, but during cross-examination, she stated that her older daughter was 7 or 8 years old when she was circumcised, and then stated, “No, no, I don’t remember their age. I don’t remember.” Based on this record, we cannot say that no reasonable factfinder could have found Bakayoko’s testimony not credible.

We also conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Bakayoko’s motion to reopen because the motion was not supported by new or previously unavailable evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Maldonado v. Holder, 763 F.3d 155, 2014 WL 3953651, at *7 (2d Cir. Aug.14, 2014).

We have considered all of petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).  