
    Sanu Kaji SANJEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-2494.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 10, 2013.
    Jason A. Nielson, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; William C. Peachey, Assistant Director; Lindsay Corliss, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, PETER W. HALL and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Sanu Kaji Sanjel, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of a February 10, 2011, decision of the BIA, affirming the January 30, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte Laforest, denying Sanjel’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sanu Kaji Sanjel, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 10, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 30, 2009). 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 supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). 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 the application in this case, the agency may, “[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements as well as inconsistencies between those statements and other record evidence without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination as to Sanjel’s claim that Maoists threatened him and seek to harm him. In finding Sanjel not credible, the agency reasonably relied on the fact that his asylum application, his wife’s letter, and his father’s letter all omitted the assertion that he hid from Maoists and that the Maoists sought his whereabouts from his wife and father. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67 & n. 3. Moreover, a reasonable fact finder would not be compelled to credit Sanjel’s explanations for these omissions. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005).

Given the omissions findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and was dispositive of Sanjel’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006). Sanjel abandons any challenge to the BIA’s decision insofar as it rejected his due process claim and denied his motion to remand.

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).  