
    Dulal CHOWDHURY, aka Dulal Nil Chowdhury, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH 
      , United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-4348.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 13, 2016.
    Joshua Bardavid, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stewart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Sharon M. Clay, Trial Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    
      PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, ROSEMARY S. POOLER and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted as the respondent in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Dulal Chowdhury, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of a November 4, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming the February 16, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dulal Chowdhury, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (BIA Nov. 4, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct.N.Y. City Feb. 16, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision, including the portions not explicitly discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

Chowdhury’s asylum application is governed by the REAL ID Act. Thus, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” See 8 U.S.C.- § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008).

The agency’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. As the IJ found, Chowdhury’s testimony was both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with his asylum application. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (providing that an IJ may support an adverse credibility determination with “any inconsistency or omission”). For example, Chowdhury’s testimony regarding his alleged January 2008 beating by members of a rival political party, which landed him in the hospital, conflicted with his description of the incident in his asylum application, which placed the attack on a different date in January 2007. The IJ considered and rejected Chowdhury’s explanation that the asylum application must have contained a printing error. Even if this explanation were plausible, the agency need not credit it. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005). Chowdhury also omitted from his asylum application any mention of a 2004 beating by members of the same political party, which he testified resulted in another extended hospitalization. Chowdhury had no explanation for this omission.

The IJ also appropriately based her decision in part on Chowdhury’s demeanor during the hearing. We grant “particular deference” to the agency’s demeanor findings. Shu Wen Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 380-81 (2d Cir.2007), see also Li Zu Guan v. INS, 453 F.3d 129, 140 (2d Cir.2006). The IJ also found that Chowdhury did not adequately corroborate his claim, since there was very little objective evidence, and the documents he submitted were of doubtful reliability. Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007).

Accordingly, a totality of the circumstances supports the adverse credibility determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Because the only evidence of a threat to Chowdhury’s life or freedom depended upon his credibility, the adverse credibility finding necessarily precludes success on his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.  