MING XIA LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., United States Attorney General, Board of Immigration Appeals, Respondent, 371 F. App'x 240

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Ming Xia Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the March 16, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the August 14, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Elizabeth A. Lamb denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming Xia Lin, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 16, 2009), aff'g No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 14, 2007). 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 including the portions not explicitly discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005). 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 agency’s adverse credibility determination. The agency reasonably relied on several discrepancies between Lin’s testimony and a letter from her mother, as well as Lin’s demeanor, in finding her not credible.

Because Lin does not challenge these findings, they stand as valid bases for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146-147 (2d Cir.2008). We also find no error in the findings that Lin does challenge. The IJ reasonably found that there were discrepancies within Lin’s testimony regarding the date that she allegedly became pregnant and the date that she was forced to have an abortion. In her brief, Lin argues that the IJ ignored her explanation that she had a cold on the date of her hearing and that she immediately corrected herself after she gave the wrong date.

Neither of these arguments, however, would compel a reasonable fact-finder to accept Lin’s explanation or disturb the IJ’s finding. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir.2005). Ultimately, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 at 167. Therefore, the IJ properly denied Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because the only evidence that Lin would be persecuted or tortured depended on her credibility. 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 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(b).