SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Aihong Lu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 9, 2015 decision of the BIA affirming ,an August 12, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Aihong Lu, No. A205 883 172 (B.I.A. Mar. 9, 2015), aff'g No. A205 883 172 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 12, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). 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). For asylum applications like Lu’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[considering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies in an 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)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.

The IJ reasonably relied on the discrepancies among Lu’s testimony, passport, and medical reports. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). Lu testified that she visited her injured son on December 9, 2009, the day after he was first hospitalized. Her passport contradicted this testimony; it showed she was not in China at any point between her son’s injury and his second hospitalization on December 20, 2009. Lu’s testimony did not resolve the discrepancy. She testified that she could not remember when she returned to China, but that does not explain why she initially said she was with her son on December 9, 2009, or her later statement that she was with him in the hospital at some point. The IJ was not required to credit this explanation because it conflicted with medical records showing that any hospitalization occurred in the period Lu was outside China. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). These inconsistencies undermined the basis of Lu’s claim — that she wanted to have a second child.- because her son was severely injured — as well as the validity of the medical records showing her son’s hospitalization. Zhou Yun Zhang v. U.S. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 74 (2d Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007).

Considering the above inconsistencies, the “totality of the circumstances” supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. That determination is dispositive because Lu’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT .relief were all based on the same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

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 DENIED 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).