*7 SUMMARY ORDER

Yingzi Pei, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the September 8, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the February 27, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yingzi Pei, No. A099 037 679 (B.I.A. Sept. 8, 2010), aff'g No. A099 037 679 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 27, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

The agency’s adverse credibility determination is based on substantial evidence given inconsistencies among Pei’s testimony, written application, and record evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. For example, although Pei testified that she was arrested in China in 2005 and fled that country for the United States in 2007, the record contains an application for adjustment of status that was signed by Pei in July 2005, and indicated that she arrived in the United States in 1999. Pei further testified inconsistently regarding whether and when she took birth control pills prescribed by family planning officials. Pei also omitted from her asylum application her assertion at her hearing that she had been beaten in China for her church attendance. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 164, 166 n. 3 (recognizing that “[a]n inconsistency and an omission are, for [credibility] purposes, functionally equivalent”). Moreover, a reasonable fact finder would not be compelled to credit Pei’s explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).

Given these inconsistencies, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167, and provided an adequate basis for denying Pei’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, see Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155-57 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that when the same factual assertions are needed for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, an adverse credibility finding regarding those assertions forecloses all forms of relief).

Although Pei argues that she established her eligibility for CAT relief based on her illegal departure, as the government notes, she did not raise this argument before the agency and it is thus unexhausted. Accordingly, we decline to consider this issue. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007).

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 with respect to this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).