we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 1 . Wang argues that the addendum he submitted to the IJ on the day of his merits hearing contains information regarding his two arrests in China, and that the discrepancy relied upon by the agency is, therefore, non-existent. We find this argument unavailing because the IJ properly exercised her discretion in refusing to admit the addendum into evidence, as its submission was untimely and Wang offered no reason, much less a good one, for its lateness. Cf. Dedji v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187, 192-93 (2d Cir.2008). Moreover, the IJ reasonably found that the addendum served only to further undermine Wang's credibility. See Xu Duan Dong v. Ashcroft, 406 F.3d 110, 111-12 (2d Cir.2005)
holding that ij properly based adverse credibility finding on omission in asylum application where omitted fact went  to the heart of the asylum claim  citation omitted holding that issue raised in conclusion of brief but omitted from statement of issues and body of brief was not preserved holding that where petitioner eventually alleged in a brief affidavit supplementing his asylum application a previously omitted material fact such a delay strains credulity ellipses omitted holding that jurisdiction was lacking to review an ijs determination that an asylum application was untimely when that determination was based on the fact that the petitioner offered no evidence other than his own testimony regarding his date of entry holding that petitioner abandoned issues and claims not sufficiently raised in his brief