QIANG ZHOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 365 F. App'x 270

SUMMARY ORDER Qiang Zhou, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 2, 2009 order of the BIA, affirming the July 30, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier Balas-quide, which denied Zhou’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qiang Zhou, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 2, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 30, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case. We review both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions.

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 Corovie v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Corovie, 519 F.3d at 95. That determination was based on: (l)inconsistencies regarding the date Zhou was purportedly fired from his job at the government-owned factory; (2) inconsistencies in the date Zhou claimed to have traveled to Beijing to ask the government to reinstate his employment at the factory; and

(3) Zhou’s inconsistent testimony with regard to who paid the fíne to secure his release from detention. The agency did not err in declining to credit the explanations Zhou offered for these discrepancies. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir.2005). Each of these findings was a valid basis for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Because the only evidence of a threat to Zhou’s life or freedom depended on his credibility, the agency’s adverse credibility determination was fatal to his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v.

Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the petitioner’s pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.