Abou Yero ANNE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 392 F. App'x 900

SUMMARY ORDER Abou Yero Anne, a native and citizen of Mauritania, seeks review of a June 22, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the August 29, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert Weisel, which denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Abou Yero Anne, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 22, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 29, 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 supplemented by the BIA’s decision. 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 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). The agency’s adverse credibility determination was adequately supported by the evidence. See Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003) (finding that an adverse credibility determination must be based on “specific, cogent reasons” that “bear a legitimate nexus” to the finding).

The agency reasonably determined that the inconsistencies between Anne’s testimony and written applications undermined his credibility. Specifically, although Anne testified that nothing happened to him during his 1992 detention' in Mauritania, his 2000 asylum application indicates that he was “tortured” while in detention and his 2006 application indicates that he was beaten for three hours. This specific discrepancy, which is self-evident and relates directly to the basis of Anne’s claim of persecution, is adequate support for the adverse credibility determination. See Xian Tuan Ye v.

Dep’t of Homeland Security, 446 F.3d 289, 294 (2d Cir.2006). To the extent that Anne offered explanations for this discrepancy, the IJ was not compelled to credit them. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005). Moreover, contrary to Anne’s assertion, the IJ did not err in finding that his failure to provide reasonably available corroboration further undermined the veracity of his claim. Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir.2006).

Finally, because Anne failed to meet his burden of proof for asylum, he necessarily fails to meet the higher burden required to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155-56 (2d Cir.2006). Anne does not challenge the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim. See Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 n. 6 (2d Cir.2007). 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).