
    Ejaz AHMED, aka Ejaz Ahmad, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-2194-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 24, 2012.
    
      Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; Kristen Giuffreda Chapman, 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

Ejaz Ahmed, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of a May 20, 2011, decision of the BIA affirming the August 31, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under • the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ejaz Ahmed, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 20, 2011), aff’g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 31, 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 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 Yaniqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

For asylum applications such as Ahmed’ 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 inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements, 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 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008). In this case, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination, based on both inconsistencies between Ahmed’s testimony and an affidavit he provided in support of his asylum application as well as material omissions in his asylum application.

In an affidavit included with his asylum application, Ahmed stated that on or about June 16, 2007, “ruffians” from the Muslim Conference in Muzaffarabad attacked his home, damaged his household goods, used “nasty” language, and “severally [sic] beat [him] and injured [him].” However, Ahmed testified that he was not home during the time of the attack, and that his servant was injured and not himself personally. As noted by the BIA, Ahmed testified that he told the police he himself had been injured because he was afraid they would not otherwise take the report. However, Ahmed’s explanation of why he conflated his servant’s experience with his own to the police did not explain why he repeated that he had been beaten in a sworn statement. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005) (the agency need not credit an applicant’s explanations for inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would compel a reasonable fact-finder to do so).

In addition, Ahmed failed to disclose in his asylum application that he departed for the United States and returned to Pakistan after an alleged incident of past persecution. The agency properly relied upon these inconsistencies and omissions in finding Ahmed not credible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 (“[a]n inconsistency and an omission are ... functionally equivalent”).

Therefore, in this case, the totality of the circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination, and we will defer to that finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Because the only evidence of a threat to Ahmed’s life or freedom was his testimony, the well-founded adverse credibility determination precludes success on the 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. 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).  