affirms the decision of the IJ without issuing an opinion, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See, e.g., Twum v. INS, 411 F.3d 54, 58 (2d Cir.2005). We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility findings, under the substantial evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). Upon our review of the administrative record, we find that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The IJ reasonably relied on Lin’s failure to include in his asylum application any assertion that he was arrested by Chinese authorities and electrocuted while in detention. See Xian Tuan Ye v. DHS, 446 F.3d 289, 294-96 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Although “asylum applicants are not required
holding that an asylum applicants submission of false documents without an adequate explanation supported adverse credibility findings 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 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