SUMMARY ORDER

Zhong Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 24, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the November 28, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“U”) Steven R. Abrams, which denied Jiang’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. In re Zhong Jiang No. A200 038 251 (BIA Mar. 24, 2009), ajfg No. A200 038 251 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 28, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, this Court reviews 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-settled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see, e.g., Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency reasonably relied on: (1) Jiang’s testimony that he attended a Falun Gong rally on May 13, 2007, which conflicted with the photographs he submitted, dated April 2007; (2) the lack of detail in his testimony about the injuries he allegedly suffered; (3) his lack of corroborative evidence; and (4) inconsistencies in his testimony regarding his and his father’s stomach ailments.

No reasonable fact finder would be compelled to credit Jiang’s explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Moreover, the agency’s reliance on Jiang’s failure to submit corroborating evidence was reasonable. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Under the REAL ID Act, which applies to Jiang’s application for relief, “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the discrepancies the agency identified provide substantial evidence for the adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). Because Jiang’s claims for relief were based on the same factual predicate, the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief was proper. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (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(b).