Case Name: Ali ASGHAR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-09
Citations: 708 F. App'x 34
Docket Number: 16-3261
Parties: Ali ASGHAR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, RICHARD C. WESLEY, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 708
Pages: 34–35

Head Matter:
Ali ASGHAR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
16-3261
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 9, 2018
FOR PETITIONER: Usman B. Ahmad, Long Island City, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General; John S. Hogan, Assistant Director; Lindsay Corliss, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, RICHARD C. WESLEY, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
¡SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Ali Asghar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of an August 26, 2016, decision of the BIA that affirmed an April 22, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Ali Asghar, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 26, 2016), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 22, 2014). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the decision of the IJ as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the bases for denying relief that were not challenged before, or affirmed by, the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we do not address the IJ's conclusion that Asghar's asylum application was untimely, on which the BIA did not rely, or Asghar's claimed fear of the Taliban, which he abandoned. Id. The applicable standards of review are well established. Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 306-07 (2d Cir. 2003), superseded by the REAL ID Act as recognized in Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2008).
Because Asghar filed his' asylum application in 2003, the REAL ID Act does not apply in this case. Liang Chen v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 454 F.3d 103, 106 n.2 (2d Cir. 2006). In pre-REAL ID Act cases, an adverse credibility determination must be based on "specific, cogent reasons" that "bear a legitimate nexus" to the finding, and any discrepancy must be substantial when "measured against the whole record." Secaida-Rosales, 331 F.3d at 307-08.
The agency reasonably found Asghar not credible based on inconsistencies regarding whether he was a member of the Sipah-E-Sahaba Pakistan, whether he shot his father's alleged murderer, and whether he reported the events surrounding his father's murder to police. See Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402-03 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that "[ajdverse credibility determinations are appropriately based on inconsistent statements" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Asghar did not compellingly explain any of the record inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).
Given these record inconsistencies that relate to the heart of Asghar's claim, the agency's adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See Secaida-Rosales, 331 F.3d at 307; see also Tu Lin, 446 F.3d at 402-03. That determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims are based on the same factual predicate. 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).