SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Pasang Donga Sherpa, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of *42 an October 29, 2014 decision of the BIA, affirming a November 8, 2012 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Sherpa’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Pasang Donga Sherpa, No. A087 640 023 (B.I.A. Oct. 29, 2014), aff'g No. A087 640 023 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 8, 2012). Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA, see Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005), applying well established standards of review, see Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). In so doing, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

For asylum applications like Sherpa’s, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies in an 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); see 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.

Here, the agency reasonably relied on several discrepancies in the record in finding that Sherpa was not credible as to her claims that Maoists threatened her, attacked her husband, and killed her father on account of her membership in the Nepali Congress Party. Specifically, there was an inconsistency between Sherpa’s testimony and her record evidence regarding whether she had burned the initial threatening letter that she received from the Maoist. Although she testified that she had burned the letter, she, in fact, submitted it into evidence. When confronted with this inconsistency, Sherpa claimed that she was nervous and had forgotten about the letter. The IJ was not compelled to credit Sherpa’s explanation. Sherpa’s testimony did not indicate that she had forgotten about the letter; to the contrary, she remembered burning it See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“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.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Further evidentiary concerns arose because the original death certificate for her father that Sherpa submitted was registered and signed three months before his date of death. A second death certificate had an updated registration date and stated that the first document simply contained a mistake. The IJ was not required to credit this explanation, particularly given that the first certificate was handwritten and the registration date was written twice on the document, making it unlikely that the date was simply a clerical error. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. Sherpa’s argument that the IJ should not have used a translation error in her father’s death certificate against her is misplaced. The IJ acknowledged the translation error and did not cite it as support for the adverse credibility determination.

Finally, the agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies regarding the attack on Sherpa’s husband. Sherpa testified inconsistently as to when the attack occurred and her allegation that her husband was hospitalized after the attack was a detail *43 absent from her husband’s June 2012 letter describing the incident. Her explanations for these inconsistencies were not compelling. See id. In her brief, Sherpa argues that her husband’s letter could not have included his hospitalization because the letter was written in 2009, years before the attack. This argument mischaracter-izes the record, which includes two letters from Sherpa’s husband, one from 2009 and another from 2012.

Furthermore, the agency reasonably found Sherpa’s additional corroborating evidence insufficient to rehabilitate her credibility. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007); Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007).

Given these inconsistencies both within Sherpa’s testimony and between her testimony and documentary evidence, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. That credibility finding is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

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