No. 09-399-ag.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 7, 2010.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED.
Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Melody K. Eaton, Trial Attorney (for Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, and Aviva L. Poctzer, Senior Litigation Counsel), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Fa Chang Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 30, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the March 19, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson, which denied Zhang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Fa ChangZhang, No. A099 934 675 (BIA Sept. 30, 2009) ajfg No. A099 934 675 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 19, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this 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 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008); Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110
(2d Cir. 2008).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. The IJ reasonably relied on petitioner’s omission from his asylum application and his wife’s omission from her first letter of any claim that he was beaten on account of his resistance to China’s family planning policy. Although petitioner argues that he failed to include this information in his application because he thought it was unnecessary, in the circumstances of this case, that argument does not compel us to find error in the IJ’s decision. Id. Accordingly, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1252(b)(4)(B).
Because petitioner’s claims were all based on the same factual predicate, the agency’s adverse credibility determination was a proper basis for denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
Page 85
and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
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).