Case Name: DAWA SANGPO, aka Som Nurbu Sherpa, 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: 2015-01-13
Citations: 595 F. App'x 62
Docket Number: No. 12-3646
Parties: DAWA SANGPO, aka Som Nurbu Sherpa, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 595
Pages: 62–63

Head Matter:
DAWA SANGPO, aka Som Nurbu Sherpa, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-3646.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 13, 2015.
Dawa Sangpo, pro se, Central Islip, NY, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel; Stefanie A. Svoren-Jay, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Dawa Sangpo, an alleged native and citizen of the Tibet Autonomous Region of China, seeks review of an August 14, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the January 6, 2011, decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ"), denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Dawa Sangpo, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 6, 2011). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this ease.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the decisions of the IJ and the BIA "for the sake of completeness." Wangchuck v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).
For asylum applications like Sangpo's, governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, "[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances," base a credibility determination on inconsistencies in asylum applicant's statements and other record evidence "without regard to whether" they go "to the heart of the applicant's claim." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). 'We defer . to an Id's credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling." Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam). Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination.
The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies in the record regarding whether Sangpo was married at the time police searched his home, when he and his parents went to Nepal to arrange his travel to the United States, and why he failed to obtain evidence from a friend with firsthand knowledge of his claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). The agency was not compelled to credit his explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005). Having questioned Sangpo's credibility, the agency reasonably determined that his failure to corroborate his claim further undermined his credibility. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007) (per curiam).
Given the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, the agency reasonably found Sangpo not credible. That finding is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (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).