Case Name: Mamadou Moustapha DIALLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-01
Citations: 363 F. App'x 109
Docket Number: No. 08-5806-ag
Parties: Mamadou Moustapha DIALLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, Robert d. sack and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 363
Pages: 109–111

Head Matter:
Mamadou Moustapha DIALLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-5806-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 1, 2010.
Ronald S. Salomon, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Ernesto H. Molina Jr., Assistant Director, Vanessa Otero Lefort, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, Robert d. sack and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Mamadou Moustapha Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, seeks review of an October 31, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the May 16, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Brigitte LaFor-est denying Diallo's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Mamadou Moustapha Diallo, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2008), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 16, 2007). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
When the BIA issues an opinion that fully adopts the IJ's decision, we review the IJ's decision. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 523 (2d Cir.2007). We review the agency's factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see, e.g., Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008). We review de novo questions of law and the application of law to undisputed fact. Passi v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 98, 101 (2d Cir. 2008).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that Diallo was not credible. As the IJ found: (1) Diallo's testimony that his nephew was unable to find out the name of the prison in which his wife was detained was inconsistent with the letter from his nephew stating that his wife was detained at the Central House of the Surete of Conakry; (2) Diallo's testimony that he joined the Union for Progress and Renewal-North American Federation ("UPR-NAF") when he first arrived in the United States was inconsistent with the letter from UPR-NAF stating that he joined the Federation in May 2007; and (3) that letter bears the wrong name for Diallo.
The IJ reasonably found that these inconsistencies go to the heart of his claim for asylum. See Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307-08 (2d Cir.2003). The wrong name on the UPR-NAF letter and the inconsistency between that letter and his testimony regarding when he joined the Federation call into question whether he is actually a member of that organization and bear directly on whether the Guinean authorities would seek to persecute him. Moreover, the inconsistency between his testimony and his nephew's letter concerning his wife's whereabouts renders his wife's detention questionable, and his wife's arrest forms a significant part of Diallo's claim that he fears returning to Guinea.
Because the only evidence of a threat to Diallo's life or freedom depended upon his credibility, the adverse credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes success on his claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief, as all three claims were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.