Vikram SINGH, aka Vikram Ghotra, Vikram Singh Chotra, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 523 F. App'x 60

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Vikram Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of an October 14, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the July 6, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Vikram Singh, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 14, 2010), aff'g No. No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 6, 2009). 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 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005). Singh argues that the agency erred in pretermitting his asylum application as untimely because (1) it applied the wrong legal standard in requiring him to provide direct evidence of when he entered the United States, and (2) he established his date of entry. However, we will not address Singh’s first argument as the issue was not presented to or considered by the BIA. See Lin Zhong v. U.S.

Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir.2007) (reaffirming that this Court “may consider only those issues that formed the basis for [ the BIA’ s] decision”). And we do not have jurisdiction to consider Singh’s second argument, as it “disputes the correctness of an IJ’s fact-finding,” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir.2006), relating to the agency’s conclusion that his asylum application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (providing that Courts do not have jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that an asylum application was untimely).

With regard to withholding of removal and CAT relief, the agency found that Singh was not credible because of inconsistencies between his testimony and his Canadian asylum application and drivers’ license, his evasive demeanor, and his failure to provide corroboration of his claims, such as his passport, direct proof of the date of his entry, or affidavits from witnesses in India. Singh failed to sufficiently challenge most of these findings, see Yueqing Zhang v.

Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005), and they stand as a valid basis for the agency’s adverse credibility determination, see Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.2008). While the agency’s statement that Singh did not present affidavits from witnesses in India was flawed, we decline to remand because “there is no realistic possibility” that the agency would reach a different conclusion on remand. Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 401 (2d Cir.2005).

The agency’s inconsistency and demeanor findings are largely supported by the record and provide substantial evidence in support of the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii) (providing that the agency may base an adverse credibility determination on inconsistencies without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim”). Because Singh’s requests for withholding of removal, and CAT relief shared the same common factual basis, the agency’s finding that his testimony was not credible supports the denial of relief. See Paul v.

Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 157 (2d Cir.2006). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.