Shafiqul ISLAM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 371 F. App'x 206

SUMMARY ORDER Shafiqul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of a March 31, 2009, order of the BIA, affirming the July 18, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Gabriel C. Videla, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shafiqul Islam, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 31, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 18, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Corovic, 519 F.3d at 95. That determination was based on:

(1) Islam’s demeanor; (2) internal inconsistencies in Islam’s testimony regarding where an alleged 2005 beating took place, when he resumed his political activities upon his return to Bangladesh, and why he failed to report his kidnaping to authorities; (3) the omission from Islam’s asylum application of any assertion that his alleged persecutors ordered him to end his membership in the Awami Youth League; and

(4) Islam’s failure to offer available corroboration. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mu-kasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008). Moreover, the agency did not err in declining to credit the explanations Islam offered for these discrepancies. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2005). Because the only evidence of a threat to Islam’s life or freedom depended on his credibility, the agency’s adverse credibility determination was fatal to his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); Wu Biao Chen v.

INS, 344 F.3d 272, 275 (2d Cir.2003). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).