
    YANPING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-3781.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 24, 2014.
    Feng Li, Moslemi and Associates, New York, Y, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel; John M. McAdams, Jr., Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C, for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yanping Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 30, 2011, decision of the BIA affirming the February 11, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Thomas J. Mulligan denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yanping Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 30, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 11, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Jigme Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006). 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, governed by the REAL ID Act, such as is the case here, the agency may, “[e]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his or his witness’s statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Chen did not testify credibly. The IJ reasonably relied on inconsistencies in the record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166-67. As the agency noted, Chen’s testimony was internally inconsistent regarding when and why she obtained her notarial birth certificate and when she decided to leave China. When confronted with the inconsistency between the date of her passport and the date on which she obtained her notarial birth certificate, Chen ultimately stated that she could not remember why she obtained the notarial birth certificate. The agency was not required to credit that explanation as it was inconsistent with her testimony that she did not decide to leave China until 2005 and contradicted her prior explanation that she obtained the birth certificate in 2004 as instructed by the snakehead helping her leave China. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005) (finding that an agency need not credit an applicant’s explanations unless those explanations would compel a reasonable fact-finder to do so).

Further, in finding Chen not credible, the IJ reasonably relied in part on her demeanor, noting that Chen was frequently hesitant and tentative during her testimony. Because the IJ was in the best position to observe Chen’s manner while testifying, we afford this demeanor finding particular deference. See Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 73-74 (2d Cir.2004), overruled on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.2007).

Given the inconsistencies in the record, and in light of our deference to the agency’s findings regarding demeanor, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (explaining that this Court “defer[s] 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”). Accordingly, the agency did not err in denying Chen’s application for asylum and withholding of removal, as those claims were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006). Chen has not challenged the denial of CAT relief.

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.  