
    YU YUN YANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-6029-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 4, 2010.
    
      Dehai Zhang, Flushing, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; David V. Bernal, Assistant Director; Liza S. Murcia, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Yu Yun Yang, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a December 3, 2008, order of the BIA affirming the July 13, 2006, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy Horn, which denied her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yu Yun Yang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 3, 2008), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 13, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 523 (2d Cir.2007). The applicable standards of review are well-established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66(2d Cir.2008).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Specifically, the IJ properly based his adverse credibility finding on the cumulative impact of Yang’s demeanor, dramatic differences in her 2004 and 2006 testimony describing her abortion procedure, inconsistencies regarding her age and the dates when officials informed her that she must undergo a mandatory IUD insertion, and omissions in her father’s letter regarding continued threats from Chinese officials. See Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 401-02 (2d Cir.2006). Even if we were persuaded by Yang’s argument that it was not implausible for a doctor to confirm her pregnancy by checking her pulse, see generally Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 405 (2d Cir.2005), no remand would be required, as we can confidently predict that “the agency would reach the same result upon a reconsideration cleansed of errors.” Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir.2006) (citing Cao He Lin, 428 F.3d 391, and Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 434 F.3d 144 (2d Cir.2006)).

We also find no merit in Yang’s claim that the BIA violated her due process rights. To establish a due process violation, an alien must demonstrate “that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims or that the IJ or BIA otherwise deprived her of fundamental fairness.” Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The alien also must demonstrate that the alleged due process violation caused her cognizable prejudice. See Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir.2008). Yang has not demonstrated that the BIA’s failure to send the initial briefing schedule for her appeal to the correct address denied her a full opportunity to present her claims, deprived her of fundamental fairness, or caused her any prejudice. The BIA granted her an extension on the basis of its mailing error and sent the new briefing schedule to the correct address. Nor has Yang demonstrated that the BIA violated due process by denying her second request for an extension, where she fails even to describe the basis for that request, which is absent from the record.

Yang has presented no argument regarding the denial of her applications for withholding of removal and CAT relief or her illegal departure claim. Those issues are waived. See Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.1998).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously gi'anted 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).  