
    BI XIANG ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-2016 NAC.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 9, 2014.
    Farah Loftus, Century City, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director; Joseph D. Hardy, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
    Present: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., DENNIS JACOBS, and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

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

Petitioner Bi Xiang Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 6, 2013, decision of the BIA, affirming the July 14, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier Balasquide, denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bi Xiang Zheng, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 6, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 14, 2011). 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 as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005); see also Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir.2007). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008). Because Zheng’s asylum application is governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may base a credibility finding on inconsistencies in her statements and other record evidence without regard to whether the inconsistencies 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 adverse credibility determination. Although minor date inconsistencies need not be fatal to an applicant’s credibility, see Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 288 (2d Cir.2000), Zheng’s inconsistencies regarding the year of her purported arrest (for practicing Christianity in an underground church) were not minor. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Zheng testified on four occasions that her arrest occurred on June 10, 2006, even when confronted with her inconsistent statement in her asylum application that she had been arrested on the same day in 2007. However, upon further questioning as to whether the 2007 date in her application was incorrect, Zheng first stated that she did not know, and then changed her testimony to state that she had been arrested in 2007. The IJ was not compelled to credit her explanation — that she made a mistake and that she was nervous — because she repeatedly provided contradictory statements, even after the inconsistencies were brought to her attention. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.2005).

The agency also reasonably found that: (1) Zheng’s testimony that she remained in China for one year after she stopped reporting to police on a monthly basis was inconsistent with her later testimony that she left China five days after she stopped reporting; and (2) Zheng’s testimony that she was arrested in either 2006 or 2007 was contradicted by her brother’s testimony that she was arrested in 1997, and his agreement that her arrest occurred more than ten years before her 2011 hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Based on the multiple inconsistencies in the record, the agency reasonably found Zheng not credible and denied her relief insofar as those claims were based on her religion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 2 34.1(b)  