Opinion ID: 59637
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Xie’s Claim

Text: any other relevant factor. There is no presumption of credibility, however, if no adverse credibility determination is explicitly made, the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal. INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). This “totality of the circumstances” test for credibility determinations also applies to applications for withholding of removal. INA § 241(b)(3)(C); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C). 10 On appeal, Xie challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. After review, we conclude that the IJ made an explicit adverse credibility finding and provided specific, cogent reasons for finding Xie not credible that are supported by the record.4 Under § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), the IJ may rely on inconsistencies in the record that do not go to the “heart” of the applicant’s claim. INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Further, the IJ may base a credibility determination on “the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . [and] the inherent plausibilty of the applicant’s . . . account.” Id. Thus, the IJ did not err in basing the credibility determination on the inconsistencies identified in its order and was not required to accept Xie’s explanations for those inconsistences.5 The record in this particular case does not compel reversal of the IJ’s credibility determination. We also cannot say that the IJ erred in finding that Xie failed to establish his identity. Xie traveled to the United States on a false Japanese passport he admitted destroying on the plane. Although Xie had lived in the United States since November 2004, he had not tried to obtain from the Chinese embassy or consulate 4 Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision, we review the orders of both the BIA and the IJ. See Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1284. We review an IJ’s credibility determination under the substantial evidence test, and “like any fact finding, [it] may not be overturned unless the record compels it.” Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286-87 (quotation marks omitted). 5 We do not address the IJ’s alternative conclusion that Xie failed to show a nexus between the alleged persecution or fear of persecution and his political opinion. 11 any official document verifying his identity by the time of the hearing two years later. Instead, in support of his application, Xie submitted a Chinese identification card, a notarial birth certificate and his family’s household register. However, the 2004 State Department Profile stated that these types of documents–documents to verify identities and births and to prove relationships–are commonly fabricated in China, and in particular in Xie’s home province of Fujian. In light of these facts, we cannot say that the IJ erred in finding that Xie failed to produce reliable proof of his identity. Because Xie failed to prove his asylum claim, his claim for withholding of removal also fails. See Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292-93. PETITION DENIED. 12