Opinion ID: 795246
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Guo's Identification of His Second Child's Birth Date

Text: 27 Guo contends that the IJ erred in relying upon a minor inconsistency with respect to Guo's testimony about when his second child was born. Br. of Pet'r at 21-23. 28 Guo first testified on direct examination that his second child's birth date was April 10, 1987. Tr. of Asylum Hr'g, Mar. 9, 1999, at 25. Before being shown any documentation, Guo was asked if he was sure that April 10, 1987, was the correct date. Guo responded, I especially know it's the month of April, but the date not as correct. Id. Guo's counsel then showed Guo a household registration book that indicated that the child was born on April 15, 1987, rather than April 10, 1987. Id. Guo was asked whether the former was the correct date. Id. He responded that it must be 15. Id. The IJ stated: 29 [Guo] did not know the birth date of his second child. He incorrectly identified the birth date. In fact, asked by his attorney, Are you sure of that date? he then began reading from the family record and concluded that it must be the date that is in the family record. 30 Oral Decision of the IJ, Mar. 9, 1999, at 5-6. 31 The IJ thus appeared to discredit Guo's testimony based on an answer as to a date in the Western calendar that was off by five days and was quickly corrected. In the context of Guo's testimony as a whole, this discrepancy is minor ... and do[es] not concern material facts. Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 288 (2d Cir.2000). It therefore does not provide a cogent reason[] for finding Guo incredible. Diallo v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 624, 629 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We therefore agree with Guo that any inconsistency in his testimony with respect to his second child's birth date was minor, and conclude that the IJ erred insofar as he appeared to give disproportionate weight to this inconsistency in evaluating Guo's credibility. 32