Alpha Amadou DIALLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent, 355 F. App'x 558

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Alpha Amadou Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, seeks review of the September 3, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the June 26, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel Anne Ferris denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Alpha Amadou Diallo, No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 3, 2008), aff'g No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 26, 2006).

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s conclusion that a petitioner is not credible and, without rejecting any of the IJ’s grounds for decision, emphasizes particular aspects of that decision, we will review both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions— or more precisely, we review the IJ’s decision including the portions not explicitly discussed by the BIA.” Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005).

We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008). We review de novo questions of law and the application of law to undisputed fact. See Passi v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 98, 101 (2d Cir.2008). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Diallo was not credible.

The IJ identified numerous discrepancies between Diallo’s testimony and documentary evidence, as well as internal inconsistencies in his testimony, regarding, inter alia, his membership, role in, and knowledge of thé Rally for the People of Guinea party; and the location, manner, and consequences of his arrests and interrogations. More generally, the IJ found that Diallo “was not a persuasive witness,” insofar as he repeatedly “changed his answers on direct” and “between direct and cross.” IJ Op. at 17.

Finally, although Diallo offered explanations for certain of these inconsistencies, a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to credit them. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005). Because Diallo’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief are based on the same factual predicate as his asylum claim, the IJ’s properly supported adverse credibility determination defeats all of Diallo’s claims. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. The pending motion for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot.