
    CHUNZI HAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-251.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 22, 2013.
    Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant, Attorney General; Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director; Remi Da Rocha-Afodu, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Chunzi Han, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 30, 2011, decision of the BIA affirming the April 1, 2010, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which pre-termitted her asylum application as untimely, and in the alternative, denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) for a lack of credibility. In re Chunzi Han, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 30, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct.N.Y.C. Apr. 1, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). 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 asylum applications such as Han’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her statements and 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).

In finding Han not credible, .the agency reasonably relied in part on her demeanor, noting her long pauses before answering certain questions. See Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS, 886 F.3d 66, 73-74 (2d Cir.2004), overruled on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.2007) (en banc). The IJ’s demean- or finding was further supported by specific examples of discrepancies in the record. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.2006). In this regard, the agency reasonably found that Han’s testimony that she had not applied for a U.S. entry visa prior to her alleged arrival in the United States in April 2008 was inconsistent with record evidence indicating that she had in fact applied for such a visa in September 2007. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir.2007).

Additionally, the agency reasonably found that Han testified inconsistently with regard to the dates she sent away a North Korean refugee whom she had hired to work at her restaurant in China and whom authorities had discovered. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Contrary to her contention, Han was put on notice of this inconsistency prior to the close of her case before the IJ. See Ming Shi Xue v. BIA, 439 F.3d 111, 125 (2d Cir.2006).

Finally, because Han does not challenge the IJ’s finding that she failed to adequately corroborate her claim with reliable evidence, it stands as a valid basis for the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.2008); Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007) (per cu-riam). Thus, given the absence of corroborating evidence, as well as the discrepancies and demeanor finding, we find no error in the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief on credibility grounds. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.2006). We do not reach the agency’s pretermission of Han’s asylum application as untimely because its alternative adverse credibility determination is dispositive of that claim.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 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 34.1(b).  