#### Mamadu A. BALDE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-5023-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2011.

Erin Edward VanValkenburg, Pittsburgh, PA, for Petitioner.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; Gregory M. Kelch, Attorney, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Petitioner Mamadu A. Balde, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, seeks review of an October 29, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming the November 18, 2008, decision *45of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Joanna Miller Bukszpan denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). *In re Mamadu A. Balde,*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 29, 2010), *aff'g*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 18, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. *Zaman v. Mukasey,*514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). “The substantial evidence standard of review applies, and we uphold the IJ’s factual findings if they are supported by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence in the record.” *Yanqin Weng v. Holder,*562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “By contrast, we review de novo questions of law and the BIA’s application of law to undisputed fact.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). *See also*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s pretermission of Balde’s asylum application, as 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that an asylum application was untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Although we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and “questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Balde disputes only the correctness of the IJ’s factual finding regarding his date of arrival; thus, he has failed to raise a question of law over which we could exercise jurisdiction, and we dismiss the petition for review insofar as it challenges the finding of untimeliness. *See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*471 F.3d 315, 328-29 (2d Cir. 2006).

With respect to withholding of removal and CAT relief, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. The IJ reasonably relied on inconsistencies between Balde’s written application and his testimony regarding when he entered the United States. *See Majidi v. Gonzales,*430 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir.2005). Although Balde’s written application indicated that he had never entered the United States prior to 1999, he conceded during his hearing that he was arrested in the United States in 1997. Moreover, a reasonable factfinder would not have been compelled to credit Balde’s explanations for this inconsistency. *See id.*at 80-81. Having questioned Balde’s credibility, the IJ reasonably relied further on Balde’s failure to provide reliable evidence corroborating his assertion that he returned to Sierra Leone in 1997. *See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,*496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007) (recognizing that an applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony may bear on credibility, either because the absence of particular corroborating evidence is viewed as suspicious, or because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question). Because the claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief were based on the same factual predicate, the well-supported adverse credibility finding warranted denial of both forms of relief. *See Paul v. Gonzales,*444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).

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.