SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioners Benereta, Gent, and Kristi Hoxha, natives and citizens of Albania, seek review of a January 12, 2012, order of the BIA, affirming the July 28, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte Laforest, denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Benereta Hoxha, Kristi Hoxha, Gent Hoxha, Nos. A099 683 815/816, A088 794 302 (B.I.A. Jan. 12, 2012), aff'g Nos. A099 683 815/816, A088 794 302 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 28, 2010). 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, including the portions of the IJ’s decision 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-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). For applications like Petitioners’, governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on the applicants’ demeanor, the plausibility of their accounts, and inconsistencies in their statements, without regard to whether those inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 265 (B.I.A. 2007). Analyzed under the REAL ID Act, the agency’s adverse credibility determinations are supported by substantial evidence.

In finding Benereta not credible, the agency reasonably relied on the Turkish entrance and exit stamps on her passport, which contradicted her testimony that she was in Albania at the time of her alleged rape. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). Although Benereta testified that she lent her passport to her sister because her sister closely resembled her, did not have a passport, and needed to travel to Turkey for medical reasons, the agency was not required to credit her explanation. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting that the agency need not credit an applicant’s explanations for inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would compel a reasonable fact-finder to do so). Indeed, while Petitioners contend that Benereta provided a plausible explanation for the presence of the stamps, we have held that “[a] petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief.” Id. at 80-81 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Nor did the agency err in declining to give weight to Benereta’s sister’s and relative’s letters because they were prepared solely for Petitioners’ immigration proceedings after Benereta’s attempt to conceal her passport stamps was discovered. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209 (B.I.A. 2010), rev’d on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012).

The agency also reasonably determined that Gent was not credible due to inconsistencies among his testimony, application, and credible fear interview regard- *59 mg whether he was a member of the Democratic Party and had been arrested in Albania. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). Although Gent testified that his former counsel advised him to conceal this information during his credible fear interview, the IJ was not required to credit his explanation. See Majidi 430 F.3d at 80-81. Indeed, the IJ determined that Gent’s explanation made no sense because he was being interviewed for the purpose of determining whether he had a credible fear of persecution and did not subsequently file a claim against his former counsel for ineffective assistance. Moreover, while Petitioners argue that Gent’s explanation was possible, as noted above, “the degree of deference we must afford to the IJ’s credibility findings” requires more. Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. Given these substantial inconsistencies, we conclude that the agency’s credibility determinations are supported by substantial evidence.

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 34.1(b).