Opinion ID: 794038
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Merits of Sanusi's CAT Claim

Text: 17 Sanusi argues that the IJ and the BIA erred in denying his CAT claim, and he objects specifically to the finding that his testimony was not credible. In cases like this, in which the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ's opinion and supplements it with its own conclusions, we review both the opinion of the IJ and that of the BIA. See Ming Xia Chen v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir.2006). We review the factual findings of an IJ for substantial evidence, see, e.g., Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir.2005), and administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary, Borovikova v. DOJ, 435 F.3d 151, 156 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). 18 The findings upon which the IJ based his adverse credibility determination constitute substantial evidence and therefore are conclusive for purposes of our review. As we noted above, the IJ found that Sanusi's demeanor was not consistent with credible testimony, that Sanusi erroneously referred to the Social Democratic Party as the Christian Democratic Party, and that Sanusi implausibly claimed to have maintained government employment while the government persecuted him for his political activity. Sanusi was the only witness who testified on his behalf, and he failed to produce documents supporting his claims. See In re Dass, 20 I. & N. Dec. 120, 124-25 (BIA 1989) (stating that while the BIA has held that an alien's testimony, without other evidence, may satisfy his burden of proof in certain scenarios, past BIA cases, however, do not stand for the proposition that the introduction of supporting evidence is purely an option with an asylum applicant in the ordinary case and stating that the general rule is that such evidence should be presented where available (distinguishing In re Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec. 439 (BIA 1987))). The IJ's adverse credibility finding therefore fully supports the IJ's determination that Sanusi had not met his burden of proof in establishing eligibility for relief under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (The burden of proof is on the applicant for withholding of removal under [the CAT] to establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. DOJ, 434 F.3d 144, 163 (2d Cir.2006) ([W]here the applicant relies largely on testimonial evidence to establish [his] CAT claim, and does not independently establish a probability of torture apart from [his] stated fear, an adverse credibility finding regarding that testimonial evidence may provide a sufficient basis for denial of CAT relief.). 19