
    ZHI YOU WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-336.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 12, 2014.
    Gerald Karikari, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel; Justin R. Markel, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Zhi You Wu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a January 3, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the July 7, 2011, 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 Zhi You Wu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 3, 2012), aff’g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jul. 7, 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 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); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

For applications, like Wu’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering 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), 1231(b)(3)(C); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008). We “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 an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

Here, the agency reasonably based its adverse credibility determination on Wu’s inconsistent testimony and failure to corroborate. First, the agency reasonably found Wu not credible based on the inconsistency between his testimony that he had been detained, and the omission of that information from his asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n. 3. At the hearing, Wu testified that he had been detained for three days by the family planning office, but on his asylum application he stated he had never been detained. When questioned about the discrepancy, he had no explanation. The failure to explain the inconsistency was reasonably relied upon by the agency. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.2005). Moreover, this inconsistency goes to the heart of Wu’s claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n. 3.

Second, the agency reasonably found that the lack of corroboration further harmed Wu’s credibility, given that the letter from his wife also failed to state that he had been detained. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007). Furthermore, when asked why his wife’s letter made no mention of his detention, he had no explanation. Although Wu argued before the BIA that his lawyer was ineffective because he had not included the detention in the asylum application, he did not explain why his wife would also have omitted such an important detail. The reliance on this lack of corroboration is reasonable.

Because the only evidence of a threat to Wu’s life or freedom depended upon his credibility, the adverse credibility determination in this case also precluded success on his claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006).

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).  