
    DING HONG LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-2757-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 19, 2011.
    David A. Bredin, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; Laura M.L. Maroldy, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
    Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, RICHARD C. WESLEY, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Ding Hong Liu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the June 18, 2010 decision of the BIA affirming the September 11, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy Horn denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. In re Ding Hong Liu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 18, 2010), affg No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 11, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. Yun-Zui Gum v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008); Shu Wen Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir.2007). “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 v. Mulcasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008). For asylum applications 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 his account, and inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. In finding Liu not credible, the IJ reasonably relied in part on Liu’s unresponsive demeanor while testifying about his claim for relief based on his membership in an underground church in China. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2005). The IJ also reasonably relied on inconsistencies in the record regarding whether Liu had ever been arrested and when government officials had raided his underground church. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166-67. Moreover, a reasonable fact finder would not be compelled to credit Liu’s explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81. Thus, we find no error in the agency’s denial of Liu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief on credibility grounds insofar as those claims were based on his purported membership in an underground church, see Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006), and we need not consider his additional arguments related to those claims for relief.

As to Liu’s claim that he fears persecution and torture for having illegally departed China, the agency reasonably noted that punishment for violating a generally applicable criminal law does not constitute persecution. See Saleh v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 962 F.2d 234, 239 (2d Cir.1992). Moreover, we have held that an applicant, such as Liu, cannot demonstrate that he will more likely than not be tortured “based solely on the fact that [he] is part of the large class of persons who have left China illegally” and on generalized evidence indicating that torture occurs in Chinese prisons. Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir.2005) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, we find no error in the agency’s denial of Liu’s application for relief insofar as it was based on his purportedly illegal departure from China.

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 DENIED 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).  