airport statement to support their adverse credibility determinations. Gao testified that he left China because he violated that country’s family planning policy by impregnating his girlfriend when they were underage and unmarried. In contrast, he indicated at his airport interview that he came to the United States because he and his girlfriend fought, and her parents and friends subsequently tried to beat him. While neither the Government nor IJ specifically asked Gao to explain why he omitted the abortion from his airport interview, this was the type of “dramatic” discrepancy that the agency could rely on without first soliciting an explanation from the applicant. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir.2005); see also Xian Tuan Ye v. DHS, 446 F.3d 289, 295-96 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). While the airport statement in the instant
holding that an asylum applicants submission of false documents without an adequate explanation supported adverse credibility findings holding that an applicants failure to include any reference to his alleged detention and beating in his 1589 form is a self evident inconsistency that the agency may rely on without first soliciting an explanation holding that where the petitioner purported to provide an exhaustive account of the grounds for his claim of asylum that included no reference to his detention and beating this account of persecution was inconsistent with his later testimony before the ij holding that the agency may rely on a lack of corroborative evidence where an applicants testimony is not otherwise credible holding that an ij need not credit an explanation for an inconsistency unless the explanation would compel a reasonable fact finder to do so