Opinion ID: 1385165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Diallo v. INS

Text: In Diallo, this Court found that, when evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence presented by an asylum candidate, an IJ must: (1) decide explicitly whether or not the candidate's testimony was credible (without relying exclusively on the lack of corroborating evidence); and, if credible, (2) determine whether additional corroboration is nonetheless necessary for the candidate to meet his or her burden of proof. 232 F.3d at 290. This Court explained that an explicit credibility determination is important to ensure that an alien receives the potential benefit of succeeding on credible testimony alone, as well as to ensure that appellate review of such a determination is preserved. Id. at 287. Our review is frustrated when it is unclear whether the agency has made an adverse credibility determinationfor example, when an IJ notes problems with parts of an applicant's story that go to the applicant's credibility but does not make the ultimate conclusion that the entirety of the testimony suffers from a lack of credibility. [3] Vague, unclear, and passing statements do not suffice to fulfill the agency's obligation to rule explicitly on the credibility of [a petitioner's] testimony. Id.; see also Diallo v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 764, 766 (7th Cir.2006) (explaining that a passing reference implying doubt is not an express credibility finding (internal quotation marks omitted)). After all, we limit our review to the reasons articulated by the agency and cannot assume a hypothetical basis for [its] determination. Cao He Lin, 428 F.3d at 400. Nevertheless, we conclude that the IJ's analysis in the present case was sufficient to qualify as an explicit credibility finding. The IJ expressed his doubts about Zaman's credibility and cited three reasons for these doubts: (1) the asylum application was skeletal at, best; (2) Zaman waited several years to apply for asylum; and (3) the PPP card was fraudulent. There was no other analysis in this atypically short oral decision that would lead this Court to conclude that the IJ relied on grounds other than credibility. Moreover, that the IJ's doubts were grave, and that he found Zaman's explanations patently impossible leave no doubt that his remarks about Zaman's credibility were not offhand. Finally, while the BIA's order does not explicitly tell us whether the IJ made an adverse credibility determination, neither does it indicate that the IJ's decision was anything else. For all of these reasons, we find that the agency made the sort of explicit credibility finding required by Diallo in order to provide this Court with a meaningful opportunity for review. [4] See Diallo, 232 F.3d at 287; cf. Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 77 (2d Cir.2005) ([W]e require a certain minimum level of, analysis from the IJ and BIA opinions denying asylum, and indeed must require such if judicial review is to be meaningful.); Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 68 (2d Cir, 2002) (When the Board decides a case . . . using summary language with little explanation for the conclusion reached, intelligible appellate review is made difficult.).