
    QUI TAI CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-568.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 12, 2014.
    Robert J. Adinolfi, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    
      Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney, General; William C. Peachey, Assistant Director; Brianne Whelan, Cohen, Acting Senior Litigation, Counsel; Matthew A. Spurlock, Trial, Attorney, Office of Immigration, Litigation, United States Department, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Qui Tai Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a January 25, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming the August 31, 2011, decision an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qui Tai Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. 25, 2013), aff’g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 31, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 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); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

For applications, like Chen’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008). 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.

Here, the agency’s credibility determination is supported by the record. First, the agency reasonably found Chen not credible based on his failure to include the fine he was allegedly required to pay to the family planning authorities in his asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n. 3 (stating that an “inconsistency and an omission are ... functionally equivalent”). At the hearing, Chen testified that, in 2005, the authorities fined him 20,000 renminbi because of his wife’s two unauthorized pregnancies, he was unable to pay the fine, and that the authorities went to his house to collect the fine or arrest him if he could not pay, but he had already left China. He later stated that his inability to pay the fine was the reason he left China. When he was asked why his asylum application did not mention either the fine or the threat of arrest, he averred that the assistant at the law office did not include them, although he had mentioned both. The agency was not required to accept this explanation. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.2005) (A petitioner “must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.”). Moreover, this omission goes to the heart of Chen’s claim that he suffered past persecution and it was proper grounds for an adverse credibility finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n. 3.

Second, the agency reasonably found that the lack of corroboration further harmed Chen’s credibility, given that the letters from his wife and in-laws also failed to state that he had been fined, and the family planning notice he submitted did not state the amount of the fine. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007). When an inconsistency is obvious, the agency need not explicitly notify the applicant. See Xian Tuan Ye v. DHS, 446 F.3d 289, 295-96 (2d Cir.2006). However, Chen was put on notice, as he was asked for an explanation and for documentation; yet, he never offered an explanation for why his wife and in-laws failed to mention the fine. The agency’s reliance on the lack of corroboration is reasonable. The adverse credibility determination is dispositive of Chen’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief, as the claims share the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006).

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).  