and oral statements; (4) the internal consistency of each statement; and (5) the consistency of the applicant’s statements with other record evidence, including country reports. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Moreover, an adverse-credibility determination may be based on inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or falsehoods, regardless of whether they relate to the heart of an applicant’s claim. Id. An applicant’s failure to mention relevant facts before his asylum hearing, such as his omission of those facts from his asylum application, may support an adverse-credibility finding. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287-88. We have held that even one inconsistency and one omission may justify an adverse-credibility determination. See Xia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 608 F.3d 1233, 1240-41 (11th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). While “an adverse credibility determination
holding that in light of an applicants omission of various relevant facts from his asylum application substantial evidence supported the ijs adverse credibility determination holding that an immigration judge may base a credibility determination on the lack of corroborating evidence if the judge also encounters inconsistencies in testimony contradictory evidence or inherently improbable testimony holding that an adversecredibility determination was supported where the applicants testimony included at least one internal inconsistency and one omission and the petitioner did not provide corroborating evidence that would have rebutted those inconsistencies and omissions holding that an adverse credibility determination must be supported by a true inconsistency recognizing that the determination is an equitable one