Case ID: f-appx_477/html/0753-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Balram KUMAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-3450-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 18, 2012.
    Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation Counsel; Christopher Buchanan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Balram Kumar, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the August 16, 2010, decision of the BIA: (1) affirming an October 23, 2008, decision of an Immigration Judge (“U”) pretermitting his application for asylum as untimely and denying his applications for withholding of removal and CAT relief; and (2) denying his motion to remand. In re Balram Kumar, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 16, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 23, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s pretermission of Kumar’s untimely asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Although we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and “questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Kumar’s only contention is that the agency mischaracterized his explanation for the untimely filing of his application. A petitioner cannot “secure review by using the rhetoric of a ‘constitutional claim’ or ‘question of law’ to disguise what is essentially a quarrel about fact-finding or the exercise of discretion”). Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 330 (2d Cir.2006). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review to the extent it challenges the agency’s preter-mission of his asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Nevertheless, we may review the agency’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief.

We consider both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008). For applications, such as this one, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances, ... base a credibility determination on ... the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), ... without regard to whether an inconsistency ... goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between Kumar’s asylum application and hearing testimony. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67 & n. 3. Nor would a reasonable fact finder be compelled to credit Kumar’s explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005). Accordingly, because Kumar based his applications for withholding of removal and for CAT relief on the same factual predicate that the agency found not credible, both claims necessarily fail. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006).

Kumar does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 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).