
    SHUI MEI ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-260-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 23, 2011.
    Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael Brown, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director; Virginia Lum, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Shui Mei Zhu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a January 6, 2011 order of the BIA affirming the November 4, 2009 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier Balasquide denying Zhu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shui Mei Zhu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 6, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 4, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

For asylum applications, such as this one, 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, candor, or responsiveness,” 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). As the agency found, Zhu was inconsistent and vague regarding her time line and travel itinerary from China to the United States. She was also inconsistent regarding the length of her employment in the United States and her claim that she had only one passport was contradicted by evidence that she had two. Zhu argues that these inconsistencies are not sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination because they are wholly unrelated to her asylum claim. However, under the REAL ID Act, an adverse credibility determination need not be based on inconsistencies that “go to the heart of the claim,” rather, the determination may be made based on any inconsistency. Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 162 (2d Cir.2008) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, Zhu’s testimony was in some respects contradicted by documentary evidence and by the testimony of her own witness. Accordingly, given the multiple inconsistencies between Zhu’s hearing testimony and other statements and evidence, the agency did not err in concluding that she was not credible.

Together, the problems the agency identified in Zhu’s testimony and statements, and her failure to provide sufficient corroboration, provide substantial evidence to support its adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii).

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).  