
    FENG MING HE, petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-849.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 13, 2013.
    Troy Nader Moslemi, Moslemi and Associates, Inc., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director; Aric A. Anderson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, DENNY CHIN, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Feng Ming He, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 7, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the January 25, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier Balasquide, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Feng Ming He, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 7, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 25, 2010). 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 supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (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 asylum applications, such as He’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 inconsistent testimony, without regard to whether the inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

The agency found that He was incredible based on his inconsistent testimony regarding his son’s birth, baptism, and death. He challenges the adverse credibility determination, contending that the inconsistencies were merely minor, and that they can be explained by memory issues and psychological trauma. However, the agency “may rely on any inconsistency [ ] in making an adverse credibility determination,” where, as here, the totality of the circumstances establishes the applicant is incredible. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (emphasis in original). He’s explanations are insufficient to compel the conclusion that his testimony was credible, especially given his statement that his son’s tragic death triggered his interest in Christianity, the basis of his persecution claim. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005).

As the only evidence of a threat to He’s life or freedom depended upon his credibility, the adverse credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes success on his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.  