Krenar MALO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Respondents, 375 F. App'x 124

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner, Krenar Malo, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of an April 16, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the March 30, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier Balasquide denying petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Krenar Malo, No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 16, 2009), aff'g No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 30, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. In making that determination, the IJ found that: (1) it was implausible that Malo could not specify his position in the Democratic Party or describe with any detail his activities on behalf of the party;

(2) Malo testified inconsistently regarding the date he entered the United States; and

(3) Malo testified inconsistently regarding the dates of the incidents of harm that served as the basis for his asylum application. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, holding that the IJ “identified inconsistencies in [Malo’s] evidence that bear directly on his claim of past persecution in Albania.” Despite Malo’s arguments, we are not compelled to conclude to the contrary. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005).

Inasmuch as each of Malo’s claims share the same factual predicate, the IJ’s ad-" verse credibility determination is fatal to his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 157 (2d Cir.2006). Thus, we need not reach the agency’s alternate burden of proof findings. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, 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).