*11 SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Huazi Li, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a February 9, 2012, order of the BIA, affirming the August 25, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson, which pretermitted, as untimely, her application for asylum and denied withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Huazi Li, No. A087 435 788 (B.I.A. Feb. 9, 2012), aff'g No. A087 435 783 (Immig.Ct. New York City Aug. 25, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. The untimeliness ruling is not challenged on this petition for review.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA. 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); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Li contests only the agency’s denial of withholding of removal on appeal. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2005).

For applications such as Li’s, which are governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may base a credibility finding on an applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). We “defer to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

Contrary to Li’s assertions, the agency reasonably found that she was not credible due to the omission of her alleged custodial beating from her written application and testimony on direct examination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 (providing that, for purposes of analyzing a credibility determination, “[a]n inconsistency and an omission are ... functionally equivalent”). Li recounted the alleged custodial beating on cross-examination. While Li argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was improperly based on a single omission, “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.” See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (emphasis in original). As the agency reasonably noted, Li’s omission concerned the only physical harm that she allegedly suffered, and Li does not dispute the fundamental importance of this omission or argue that it was sufficiently explained. Accordingly, we find that the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166.

Because the agency’s denial of withholding of removal is supported on credibility grounds, we decline to consider Li’s challenge to the agency’s alternative basis for denial — that she failed to establish a nexus between any harm she suffered and a protected ground. See INS v. Bagamashad, 429 U.S. 24, 25, 97 S.Ct. 200, 50 L.Ed.2d 190 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

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 *12 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).