Opinion ID: 147407
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Natasha's and Ledia's Hospitalization

Text: Third, in making her adverse credibility determination, the IJ determined that Natasha's medical statement from the time of her hospitalization indicates that she was about three months pregnant, and was admitted for treatment of an incipient abdomen. The medical documentation did not reference torn clothes, bruises, or cuts on Natasha's body, as she had claimed. Based on these inconsistencies, the IJ found Natasha's testimony about her rape disingenuous. The IJ also found that the medical certificate indicated that Natasha was hospitalized for eight days, but Natasha testified that she had been hospitalized for three. Natasha testified that Ledia was hospitalized for twelve days, but the medical certificate indicated that Ledia had been hospitalized for ten. The IJ determined that Natasha's explanation that she could not recall the number of days that Ledia remained in the hospital to be unconvincing especially in light of the previous discrepancies regarding [Natasha's] own alleged hospitalization. Admin. R. at 181. That the IJ relied on the medical certificate as well as testimony to reach her adverse credibility determination on this point shows us that the determination was based on reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record. For this Court [t]o reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports [reversal], but compels it. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). The IJ found the Ramas' claim of fear to be not credible, and she cited specific, cogent reasons that bore a legitimate nexus to that finding. Because the evidence does not compel reversal, we will affirm the IJ's denial of the Ramas' asylum claim, and the BIA's summary affirmance of the IJ's decision.