
    Palwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    14-2329
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    August 16, 2016
    
      For Petitioner: Palwinder Singh, pro se, Painted Post, New York.
    For Respondent: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; John W. Blakeley, Assistant Director; Christina J. Martin, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Palwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a June 13, 2014, decision of the BIA, affirming an October 5, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Palwinder Singh, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 13, 2014), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 5, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’ of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, “[considering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies in an 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)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh was not credible.

The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between The testimony and his written application. See 8 . U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67. The testimony and written application were inconsistent regarding the particulars of the August 2010 attack he allegedly suffered, such as whether he was walking or on a bicycle and whether two of his three assailants were police officers or members of a rival party. Singh’s statements were also inconsistent as to whether he played a large role as head of the youth wing in his political party, or a small one. When questioned about these discrepancies, Singh’s answers were evasive and nonresponsive and the agency was not compelled to credit them. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).

Having questioned Singh’s credibility, the agency reasonably relied further on his failure to provide sufficient corroborating evidence to rehabilitate his testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Although Singh submitted letters from his doctor and his political party, the letters omitted mention of his first attack, and thus did not corroborate (and in fact weakened) his claim that he was attacked twice. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67 n.3. The agency also reasonably declined to credit letters from Singh’s relatives and friend because the authors did not provide copies of their identification documents and were not available for cross-examination. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332, 334 (2d Cir. 2013).

Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. That finding 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).  