SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Issoufou Samake, allegedly a native and citizen of Cote D’Ivoire, seeks review of the April 27, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the November 1, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Issoufou Samake, No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. April 27, 2009), aff'g No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 1, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA’s decision. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

Samake argues that “there is no reason apparent in the record, and no reason given by either the IJ or the BIA, to doubt [Samake]’s clear testimony as to his own identity, and therefore the IJ’s decision to base his adverse credibility determination as to [Samake]’s identity on one inauthentic document was improper.” However, in its decision, the BIA specifically declined to reach the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, finding instead that the passport and identification document Samake submitted “failed to satisfy his burden of proof in these proceedings.” Therefore, the BIA’s decision rested on the sufficiency of the evidence Samake presented, not his credibility.

We have held that an applicant’s failure to establish his identity is alone sufficient to deny relief. See Borovikova v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 435 F.3d 151, 158 (2d Cir.2006). Here, as the BIA noted, Samake was not living in Cote D’Ivoire when the documents were issued, and he admitted during his testimony that the fingerprint on his identification card did not belong to him. Therefore, the BIA did not err in denying Samake’s application for asylum, and denying withholding of removal and CAT relief, both of which require even higher standards of proof.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.