erred in denying CAT relief on adverse credibility and that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard in reviewing the IJ’s decision. “[A]n adverse credibility determination made in the asylum context should not necessarily affect the BIA’s consideration of the alien’s CAT claim.” Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 185. However, an ad verse credibility determination that includes a finding that the applicant failed to establish a fact that “formed the only potentially valid basis” for the claim, may be a proper basis for the denial of CAT relief. See Xue Hong Yang v. United States. Dep't. of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.2005). At the same time an IJ must deny CAT relief separately from asylum and withholding. See Jin Chen v. United States Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 104, 116 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the IJ found that Bhatti
holding that although the ij did not explicitly analyze the cat claim the denial of the claim was linguistically separate from the denials of asylum and withholding under the ina holding that the agency may not deny a cat claim solely on the basis of adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context where the cat claim did not turn upon credibility holding substantial evidence supported the denial of cat relief where the petitioners cat claim was based on the same testimony the ij found not credible and the petitioner pointed to no other evidence that the ij should have considered holding that the agency need not analyze separately a withholding of removal claim based on the same facts as an applicants asylum claim holding that where a petitioner fails to establish a claim for asylum on the merits his claims for withholding of removal under the ina and cat also necessarily fail