SUMMARY ORDER

Su Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 24, 2012, decision of the BIA denying her motion to remand and affirming the February 25, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier Balasquide, pretermitting her asylum application. In re Su Zheng, No. A087 684 499 (BIA July 24, 2012), aff'g No. A087 634 499 (Immig.Ct.N.Y. City Feb. 25, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Because Zheng does not challenge the denial of her motion to remand, we address only the pretermission of her claim for asylum.

An asylum applicant must demonstrate “by clear and convincing evidence,” through credible testimony or rehable corroborating evidence, that she filed her application within one year after the date of her “arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The agency ruled that Zheng was not credible in testifying that she arrived in the United States on September 12, 2008, within one year of her application for asylum on July 31, 2009.

While this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the determination that an asylum application is untimely, it retains jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(2)(B), (3), 1252(a)(2)(D); Dong Zhong Zheng v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 277, 285 (2d Cir. 2009). Zheng argues that the IJ erred in deeming two aspects of her *672 testimony inconsistent with a record from her hospital visit, thus raising a question of law. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 328-29 (2d Cir. 2006). Zheng testified that her illness began 4 or 5 days prior to her hospital visit; the hospital record indicated one week. Zheng described the department where she was treated as the “[c]old department, the department that treats cold and cough”; the hospital record identified the department as the “outpatient department.”

These alleged “inconsistencies” are not merely trivial, they cannot reasonably be deemed inconsistencies at all. Characterizing a time interval as a “week” is not necessarily a precise measurement of seven days. When the hospital attendant heard Zheng complain of symptoms for 4 or 5 days, the attendant might well have thought Zheng was describing the working days of the prior week. Nor was there an inconsistency as to the identification of the treating department. After first using the phrase “[c]old department,” Zheng immediately amplified her answer to say “the department that treats cold and cough.” Obviously, the “outpatient department,” as identified in the hospital record, is the department “that treats cold and cough,” as identified by Zheng.

Zheng’s credibility as to her date of arrival in the United States, which is critical to the timeliness of her asylum claim, must be reconsidered without reliance on these two items of supposed inconsistency.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED for further consideration.