SONG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 370 F. App'x 230

SUMMARY ORDER Song Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 26, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the January 8, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte Lafor-est, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Song Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 26, 2009), affg No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 8, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this ease, we review 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 Xin Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). In making her adverse credibility determination, the IJ found that:

(1) Chen gave inconsistent dates regarding when he was allegedly arrested in China; (2) although Chen testified that his father was still in hiding in China, his father’s letter stated that he currently lives at home;

(3) Chen faded to mention during his credible fear interview that he was arrested in China for promoting Falun Gong; and

(4) Chen failed to corroborate his claim that he practices Falun Gong in the United States. Such were adequate bases for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007). To the extent that Chen offered explanations, the IJ was not compelled to credit them. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005). 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).