Abu Naser ALAM-BEGUM, aka Abu Naser, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 486 F. App'x 929

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Abu Naser Mam-Begum, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of an April 28, 2011, order of the BIA affirming the May 7, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Lourdes Martinez-Esquivel denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Abu Naser Alam-Begum, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 7, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA, including the portions of the IJ’s decision not explicitly discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (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). The agency denied Alam-Begum’s application based on an adverse credibility finding, including a determination that Alam-begum failed to establish his identity.

Because this finding was supported by substantial evidence, we need not consider the agency’s alternative finding that Alam-Be-gum failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear (or a clear probability) of future persecution. For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account and inconsistencies in his statements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165 (2d Cir.2008).

We generally afford “particular deference” to an IJ’s credibility finding. See Jin Chen v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 104, 113 (2d Cir.2005). Alam-Begum argues that the inconsistencies in his asylum applications cited by the IJ are minor, and insufficient to support an adverse credibility determination. However, the IJ did not give them great weight, instead relying largely on implausible aspects of Alam-Begum’s account of how he obtained his passport. See generally Dhoumo v.

BIA, 416 F.3d 172, 174 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam) (“The determination of an alien’s nationality or lack thereof is a threshold inquiry in determining the alien’s eligibility for asylum.”); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (placing burden of proof on the applicant). Alam-Begum claimed that he obtained a passport from the Bangladeshi consulate in New York without filing any paperwork or presenting written proof of his identity, but based solely on the statement of a friend. Moreover, the passport that Alam-Begum obtained was open-ended, even though he claimed to have criminal charges pending against him in Bangladesh.

The IJ also relied upon Alam-Begum’s failure to provide details as to these criminal. Cf. Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir.2008) (“[A] finding of testimonial vagueness cannot, without more, support an adverse credibility determination unless government counsel or the IJ first attempts to solicit more detail from the alien.”). Despite claiming that he fled Bangladesh — and was afraid to return— because of the charges, Alam-Begum did not know definitively whether they were still pending, and was unable to provide information about the other individuals arrested or the outcome of their cases.

The IJ also noted her observations of Alam-Begum’s demeanor. These factors provide substantial evidence supporting the agency’s adverse credibility finding. 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). . We also need not consider Alam-Begum’s CAT claim, which he raises before this Court in a purely conclusory fashion.

See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).