
    LI QIAO ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-2264-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 24, 2012.
    
      Briana F. Isiminger, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel; Ari Nazarov, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Li Qiao Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 13, 2011, order of the BIA affirming the June 19, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Thomas Mulligan, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Li Qiao Zheng, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 13, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 19, 2009). 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 decision of the IJ as modified and supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005); 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); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

For applications such as Zheng’s, governed by the amendments made to the Immigration and Nationality Act by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on the 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). We will “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.

The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. The IJ reasonably based his credibility finding on the following: (1) the memorized character of Zheng’s testimony; and (2) Zheng’s inconsistent testimony regarding (a) whether his wife underwent an IUD insertion or sterilization, and (b) the duration of time that Zheng saved his plane ticket in his wallet. Moreover, the IJ reasonably rejected Zheng’s explanations for his inconsistent testimony. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005). Given the inconsistent testimony and the IJ’s demeanor finding, the totality of the circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

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).  