Case Name: Goberdhan RAMSARAN, Donna Seecharan, Petitioners, 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: 2010-01-27
Citations: 362 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 08-3687-ag
Parties: Goberdhan RAMSARAN, Donna Seecharan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 206–208

Head Matter:
Goberdhan RAMSARAN, Donna Seecharan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-3687-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 27, 2010.
Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New York, NY, for Petitioners.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Barry J. Pettinato, Assistant Director, Tim Ramnitz, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
. 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:
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROGER J. MINER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioners Goberdhan Ramsaran and Donna Seecharan, both natives and citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, seek review of a June 26, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the February 19, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Barbara A. Nelson, denying their applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Ramsaran and Seecharan, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/888 (B.I.A. June 26, 2008), aff'g Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/888 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 19, 2008). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination. As the IJ found, Ramsaran's testimony conflicted with Seecharan's. Ramsaran testified that he had a fight with a police officer one night and was arrested the evening of the next day, whereas Seecharan testified that the altercation occurred during the day, and that Ramsaran was arrested the evening of that same day. The agency had authority to rely on this discrepancy in finding Petitioners not credible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008).
Having called Petitioners' testimony into question, the IJ reasonably drew an adverse inference from their failure to provide any evidence corroborating their claim. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007). Furthermore, the IJ reasonably declined to credit Petitioners' explanations for the absence of such evidence. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005).
Since Petitioners' claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief were based on the same factual predicate, the adverse credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes success on those claims. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.2006). Accordingly, we need not reach the IJ's alternative burden of proof findings.
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).
. There is no merit to Petitioners' argument that the agency applied an inappropriately stringent standard or that the BIA failed to make a credibility determination. To the contrary, the IJ made an adverse credibility determination, applying the proper standard, and the BIA affirmed that determination.