
    ZHU LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-3722.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 27, 2012.
    
      Michael Brown, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director; Nicole R. Prairie, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Zhu Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 22, 2011, decision of the BIA affirming the July 15, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“LJ”) Helen Sichel, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhu Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 22, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct.N.Y.City, July 15, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” See 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 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008).

For asylum applications, like Lin’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances, ... base a credibility finding on the demeanor, candor or responsiveness of the applicant, ... [and] the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written or oral statements, ... without regard to whether an inconsistency ... goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. 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, 534 F.3d at 167. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination.

The agency based its adverse credibility determination on inconsistencies between Lin’s original asylum application, which omits any mention of Lin’s May 1998 altercation with family planning officials, and his amended application, in which he states that family planning officials showed up at his house following his wife’s absence from her gynecological checkups, and dragged him to the family planning office, where they detained and beat him. Lin argues that because the inconsistency is between his original and amended asylum applications, and because the IJ accepted the amended application with knowledge of the addition of the May 1998 incident, this inconsistency should not reflect negatively on his credibility. This argument is without merit as the “IJ may rely on any inconsistency” in finding an applicant for asylum not credible. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (emphasis in original). Furthermore, because Lin’s explanation for the absence of the May 1998 event was itself inconsistent, in that he asserted both that the omission was due to a translation error and alternately that he forgot to include this event in his original application, the IJ was not required to credit it. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005) (the agency need not credit an applicant’s explanations for inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would compel a reasonable fact-finder to do so). Because the inconsistency relates to the incident that formed the basis of the claim of past persecution, the totality of the circumstances supports the adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Because the adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, the agency did not err in denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as all of the claims relied on the same factual predicate. 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).  