
    YUHUA CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-4476.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 1, 2016.
    
      Corey T. Lee, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; Elizabeth R. Chapman, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yuhua Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of an October 23, 2013, order of the BIA, affirming the February 16, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“U”), which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. In re Yuhua Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 23, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. New York 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 those 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 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam).

For applications governed by the REAL ID Act, like Chen’s, the agency may base a credibility finding on an applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). ‘We defer therefore to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

Initially, the agency reasonably relied in part on Chen’s demeanor, finding that much of his testimony was unresponsive and that he seemed to be testifying from a script. Because the IJ’s demeanor finding is supported by the record and he was in the best position to observe Chen’s manner while he was testifying, we afford the demeanor finding particular deference. Dong Gao v. BIA, 482 F.3d 122, 126-27 (2d Cir.2007).

The IJ’s demeanor finding is further supported by inconsistencies in Chen’s testimony. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.2006). Chen testified inconsistently regarding whether he left China with a legally obtained passport or whether a snakehead provided him with a passport. Chen also testified inconsistently regarding when he decided to leave China. When asked to explain this inconsistency, Chen stated that he was confused, nervous and dizzy. The IJ reasonably found this explanation unpersuasive. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.2005), Chen also testified that he attended college from 2004 until 2007, but upon further questioning stated that he stopped attending college after his girlfriend’s abortion in 2006.

Chen’s argument that these inconsistencies are minor and “tangential” is without merit. An IJ may reasonably rely on minor inconsistencies if their cumulative effect supports the adverse credibility determination, as they do here. Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir.2006).

Having questioned Chen’s credibility, the agency reasonably determined that Chen failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence to rehabilitate his inconsistent testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007). The agency reasonably attributed little weight to much of the evidence Chen submitted, including the letters from his family members and an abortion certificate for Chen’s girlfriend, Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006). Moreover, the agency reasonably determined that even if given probative weight, the abortion certificate would not rehabilitate the established inconsistencies in Chen’s testimony or affect the IJ’s demeanor finding.

Given the IJ’s findings with respect to petitioner’s demeanor, the inconsistencies in petitioner’s testimony, and the absence of meaningful corroboration of petitioner’s testimony, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and provided an adequate basis for denying Chen asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1 )(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155-57 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for .a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.  