SUMMARY ORDER

Li Qing Qu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the August 27, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the October 23, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Li Qing Qu, No. A094 939 048 (B.I.A. Aug. 27, 2010), aff'g No. A094 939 048 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 23, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, *62 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). 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).

The agency’s adverse credibility determination is based on substantial evidence given inconsistencies in and among Qu’s testimony, credible fear interview, and written application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. For example, Qu’s testimony that she was forced to undergo an abortion in December 2007 was inconsistent with the statements in her written application and credible fear interview that the forced abortion occurred in December 2006. Furthermore, she testified inconsistently as to when the Chinese family planning officials came to her home, and gave implausible testimony that, at only one month pregnant, her neighbors reported her to those officials because her “belly was big.”

Given these inconsistencies, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167, and provided an adequate basis for denying Qu’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 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, are based on the same factual assertions, an adverse credibility finding regarding those assertions forecloses all forms of relief).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.