SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Petitioner Bang Zhu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 6, 2012, decision of the BIA, affirming the November 1, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Randa Zagzoug, denying Zhu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bang Zhu, No. A089 278 508 (B.I.A. Nov. 6, 2012), aff'g No. A089 278 508 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 1, 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 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). 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). For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on inconsistencies in the asylum applicant’s statements and other record evidence without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Zhu was not credible.

In finding her not credible, the IJ reasonably relied on Zhu’s inconsistent statements regarding whether she distributed religious flyers prior to fleeing police in China, whether anyone accompanied her to the airport upon her departure from that country, and when she last contacted her *78 friend who introduced her to Christianity. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 584 F.3d at 163-64. Zhu failed to provide compelling explanations for the discrepancies in the record. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).

Given the inconsistency findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, and was dispositive of Zhu’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

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