SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yunfeng Xie, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 6, 2015, decision of the BIA, affirming a January 9, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“U”) denying Xie’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yunfeng Xie, No. A205 027 476 (B.I.A. Oct. 6, 2015), aff'g No. A205 027 476 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 9, 2014). 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 BIA’s decisions. 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); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).

For asylum applications like Xie’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” and inconsistencies in his statements, “without regal’d to whether” those inconsistencies 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. “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. As discussed below, the *75 adverse credibility determination rests on substantial evidence. Id. at 165.

The agency reasonably rested its credibility determination on inconsistencies concerning the day of the month Xie was supposed to pay the police protection fee, an event central to his claim of persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that material inconsistency related to example of alleged persecution is substantial evidence). Xie testified that the fee was due' on the 28th of each month. When confronted with the collection notice in the record reflecting that the fee was due on the 5th of each month, Xie responded, “Well, I forgot. It was a long time ago.” The IJ was not required to credit Xie’s explanation that his memory had faded given that the fee was pivotal to his claim. “A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted).

The agency also reasonably relied on inconsistencies concerning the date Xie’s wife paid the fine to secure his release from custody. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Xie testified that he was first arrested in January 2010, and that his wife paid 8,000 yuan for his release. On cross examination, however, Xie testified that his wife paid the fine two years earlier, in January 2008. He then confirmed that 2008 was the correct date. When confronted with the fine receipt dated January 8,2010, Xie said that his testimony was wrong, and asserted that the “back and forth” questioning confused him. Xie’s explanation on appeal—that he “clearly testified that the fine was paid after his first arrest—does not account for the inconsistent dates he provided regarding that arrest. See Ma-jidi, 430 F.3d at 80.

The adverse credibility determination is further supported by inconsistencies concerning the date Xie received medical treatment. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Xie’s testimony on this point again called into question his first arrest. He testified that he received medical treatment in January 2008, following his first arrest. When asked whether he sought medical treatment in January 2010 (which, according to his application and previous testimony, was the actual date of his first arrest), the record reflects a long pause. Xie then corrected himself and stated that he sought medical treatment in January 2010. Xie again professed confusion based on the “back and forth” questioning. The IJ was not required to credit this explanation because it does not explain why Xie could not remember when events occurred. See Ma-jidi, 430 F.3d at 80.

Given the multiple inconsistencies concerning matters central to Xie’s claim of persecution, it cannot be said “that no reasonable fact-finder could make such a credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. That finding is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were 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.