
    Jatinder SINGH-KAUR, aka Shelly Jatinder Singh, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-1214.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 15, 2015.
    
      Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; Julia J. Tyler, Trial Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, PETER W. HALL and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jatinder Singh-Kaur, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a March 25, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming an April 12, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying SinghKaur’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jatinder Singh-Kaur, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 25, 2014), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 12, 2012). 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 decision of the IJ as modified by the BIA decision. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). 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 Singh-Kaur’s, which are governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an applicant’s “demeanor, candor or responsiveness,” 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)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. The agency found that Singh-Kaur testified inconsistently regarding whether he was assaulted on March 25 or April 25 of 2010. He also testified inconsistently about whether he had received a card or a letter denoting membership in his political party when he joined; he submitted neither as evidence. At no stage of the proceedings did Singh-Kaur explain these inconsistencies in a manner that would compel a reasonable fact-finder to credit the explanation. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005).

Further, the agency reasonably found that Singh-Kaur’s corroborating evidence did not rehabilitate his inconsistent testimony, and sometimes called it into question. The letter he submitted from his political party stated that government agents attacked him; Singh-Kaur did not claim that his attackers were government agents. It was also reasonable for the agency to give Singh-Kaur’s other evidence minimal weight: the affidavits were from interested parties and were submitted without versions in the language spoken by the affiants; and the letter from the hospital was reasonably deemed unreliable because it contained misspellings atypical of such documents, was submitted in an untimely manner, and was extremely vague regarding the nature and cause of Singh-Kaur’s injuries. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir.2006).

Accordingly, a totality of the circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination, which -is disposi-tive of Singh-Kaur’s claims for asylum,' withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.2006).

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