
    XIAOFENG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-1630-ag NAC.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 9, 2012.
    John Z. Zhang, New York, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel; Melissa K. Lott, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge and PETER W. HALL and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Xiaofeng Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a April 21, 2011, order of the BIA, affirming the April 8, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert Weisel, which denied her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xiaofeng Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 21, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 8, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this ease.

Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, we review the two decisions in tandem. Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). The “substantial evidence” standard of review applies, Islam v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 53, 55 (2d Cir.2006), and we uphold the IJ’s factual findings if the are supported by “reasonable, substantial and probative evidence in the record.” Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 116 (2d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, such as this one, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his or her account, and inconsistencies in his or her statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). Analyzed under the REAL ID Act, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination.

In finding Chen not credible, the agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between Chen’s testimony and that of her witness with regard to the date on which Chen joined the China Democratic Party (“CDP”) in the United States, whether Chen authored an article that was published on the CDP’s website in July 2007, the frequency of visits from Chinese officials to Chen’s family’s home in China, and the stated purpose of a March 2009 political demonstration in which Chen participated on behalf of the CDP. Although Chen argues that these inconsistencies were too minor to support an adverse credibility determination, “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008)(emphasis in original).

Furthermore, Chen’s argument that the IJ erred in failing to solicit an explanation for the inconsistencies between her testimony and that of her witness is without merit. While it is true that an IJ may not rest an adverse credibility finding on a non-dramatic discrepancy without first putting a petitioner on notice and offering an opportunity to explain it, see Ming Shi Xue v. BIA, 439 F.3d 111, 125 (2d Cir. 2006), the agency need not give such notice and opportunity where, as here, it relied on dramatic discrepancies that went to the very heart of Chen’s claim for asylum. Id. Indeed, as the agency reasonably found, the discrepancies between Chen’s testimony and that of her witness were not minor and did, in fact, relate to the heart of her claim that she feared persecution if returned to China on account of her CDP activities in the United States, as they directly pertained to the date on which she became a member of the CDP, and the extent of her involvement in political activities that evinced her opposition to the Chinese regime. Accordingly, the IJ was not required to specifically request an explanation for these inconsistencies: where the “inconsistency is ‘dramatic’ or obvious on its face ... the petitioner can be assumed to be aware-without being told-of the need to explain it.” Ming Shi Xue, 439 F.3d at 122 n. 13.

We therefore conclude that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. This determination is dispositive of both Chen’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal, as both claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006).

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