Case Name: Sadou BARRY, 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: 2011-11-21
Citations: 446 F. App'x 377
Docket Number: No. 09-3055-ag
Parties: Sadou BARRY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 377–378

Head Matter:
Sadou BARRY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-3055-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 21, 2011.
Theodore Vialet, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Janice K. Redfern, Senior Litigation Counsel; Gerald M. Alexander, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Sadou Barry, a native and citizen of Guinea, seeks review of a June 17, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the November 29, 2007, decision of Immigra tion Judge ("IJ") Barbara A. Nelson denying Barry's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Sadou Barry, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 17, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 29, 2007). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, wehave reviewed the IJ's decision as supplemented by the BIA's decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). 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).
The IJ primarily found that Barry was not credible because the medical certificate he supplied was inconsistent with his testimony. The record supports this conclusion: while Barry testified that he had difficulty breathing, a back injury, and was confused, the certificate indicated that his breathing was normal, did not discuss a back injury, and described him as lucid. The IJ identified an inconsistency between the certificate, which states that Barry had a "bruise sub-connective at the left eye and multiple lesions" and Barry's testimony that he was beaten on the face but did not have an eye injury. It is unclear whether the bruise and lesions constituted an eye injury. Nevertheless, the IJ's adverse credibility finding, premised on inconsistencies between the medical certificate and Barry's testimony, is supported by the substantial evidence.
The agency further found that, even if his testimony was credible, he failed to sustain his burden of proof, having provided no corroborating testimony from his cousin or uncle, who are in the United States, or the Brooklyn-based Federal Secretary of the UPR. See Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 197-98 (2d Cir.2009) (an IJ may properly deny an applicant's claim for failure to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence); see also id. at 198 n. 5 ("An [alien's] failure to corroborate his testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question." (quotation omitted)). Barry does not challenge this independent reason for denying his applications for relief.
Accordingly, the agency's finding that his testimony was not credible and he did not meet his burden of proof because he provided insufficient corroboration supports the denial of relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 157 (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).