checkups. Jiang argues that her failure to mention the bribe at her asylum interview should not count against her because her interviewer wrongly assumed that Jiang stopped attending her checkups. Jiang’s argument ignores the interviewer’s subsequent question about how Jiang was able to hide her IUD removal. Jiang further argues that her omission of the bribe from her written statement was insignificant because the bribe does not -relate to the discovery of her unauthorized pregnancy in September 2012. But Jiang’s claim of persecution rests on China’s coercive birth control policies, of which IUD use is a strictly enforced component, so her evasion of those policies does relate to her credibility. See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). The agency also reasonably relied on
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 material alterations in the applicants account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding holding that a single inconsistency concerning the nature of the applicants mistreatment  afforded substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility finding holding that a material inconsistency in an aspect of the applicants story that served as an example of the very persecution from which he sought asylum affords substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility finding internal quotations omitted holding that the failure to list two collateral incidents on an asylum application did not provide substantial evidence for an adverse credibility finding