Case Name: Gamini KALANSURIYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-12
Citations: 418 F. App'x 28
Docket Number: No. 10-1749-ag
Parties: Gamini KALANSURIYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 418
Pages: 28–30

Head Matter:
Gamini KALANSURIYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-1749-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 12, 2011.
Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director; Joseph D. Hardy, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Gamini Kalansuriya, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of the April 8, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the July 29, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Alan A. Vomacka pretermitting his application for asylum as untimely filed and denying his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Gamini Kalansuriya, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 29, 2008). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the BIA's and IJ's opinions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008); Shu Wen Sun v. BIA 510 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir.2007).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination. In finding Kalansuriya not credible, the IJ reasonably relied in part on Kalansuriya's demeanor while testifying and the implausibility of part of his claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63, 66 (2d Cir.2007); Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005). Additionally, the IJ reasonably noted the absence of certain documentary evidence that may have corroborated Kalansuriya's claim. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007). Kalansuriya argues that the agency erred in concluding that there was an inconsistency between his testimony and his asylum application regarding whether he was pressured by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ("LTTE") to stop providing information to the police or military, or whether he was told instead by the LTTE to stop conducting business with the police and military. Even assuming that this inconsistency finding was not supported by the record, however, remand is unnecessary here because the agency's other findings constitute substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility determination, and we can confidently predict that the agency would reach the same decision were the case remanded. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338-40 (2d Cir.2006).
We decline to consider Kalansuriya's argument that the IJ erred by failing to consider the most recent U.S. Department of State country reports because Kalansuriya did not exhaust this argument before the BIA. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir.2007).
Finally, insofar as Kalansuriya based his applications for withholding of removal and CAT relief on the same factual predicate that the agency found not credible, both of his claims necessarily fail. 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 peti tion 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).