YING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Board of Immigration Appeals, Respondents, 363 F. App'x 120

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Ying Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 26, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the October 22, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte LaForest denying Chen’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ying Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 26, 2008), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 22, 2007).

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 Chen was not credible. Chen admitted that she lied under oath about a previously filed fiancee relative petition.

An IJ may properly conclude that an applicant’s willingness to lie under oath “infect[s] the balance of [her] uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence,” Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170-71 (2d Cir.2007), and Chen’s explanation for lying was not so compelling that the IJ erred by declining to credit it, see Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).

Additionally, substantial evidence supported the IJ’s finding that Chen was unable to provide a reasonable explanation for any of the following discrepancies: (1) while Chen testified that she worked at a factory in October 2005, when she was allegedly forced to submit to an abortion, a biographic information form in the record provided no such information;

(2) Chen’s household registration did not indicate that she worked as an accountant at a factory; and (3) although Chen testified that she had paid the 5000 RMB fine that the family planning authorities had levied against her, the letter from her mother failed to include that information. The BIA did not err in holding that, under the REAL ID Act, the IJ was entitled to rely on the cumulative effect of these discrepancies, without regard to whether they “go[] to the heart of [Chen’s] claim,” in finding that Chen was not credible. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin v.

Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 163 (2d Cir.2008). Finally, because Chen’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief are based on the same factual predicate as her asylum claim, this adverse credibility determination defeats all of Chen’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.