
    QIANG ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-1095.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 4, 2013.
    
      Charles Christophe, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Allen W. Hausman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Chi'istina Bechak Paraseandola, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, BARRINGTON D. PARKER and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Qiang Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 27, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the February 4, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Horn, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qiang Zhang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2012), affg No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 4, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered 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); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

For asylum applications, such as Zhang’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 any 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) (per curiam). Zhang challenges only the agency’s denial of relief based on its adverse credibility determination, and does not contest the agency’s finding that he failed to corroborate his claims.

Zhang claimed that he was arrested, detained, beaten and ultimately hospitalized, because of his participation in an underground house church in China. Contrary to Zhang’s contention, the agency reasonably found that his testimony was incredible, in part, because he testified that he was unable to leave the hospital from December 29, 2007, until January 22, 2008, but later testified that the doctors “allow[ed him] to be discharged” on January 10, 2008. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Zhang’s explanation for this discrepancy — his brief outing may not have been noticed by the rest of the hospital staff — is insufficient, even if plausible, to compel the conclusion that his testimony was credible, given that his testimony was also inconsistent with his asylum application, which omitted reference to a discharge, as well as a hospital record he submitted which indicated only that he was discharged on January 22, 2008. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005) (finding that a petitioner “must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Similarly, Zhang’s contention that there are plausible explanations for the inconsistent testimony of his only witness does not compel reversal. Id.

As the only evidence of a threat to Zhang’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. 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).  