Opinion ID: 1286249
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms an IJ's adverse credibility finding, we review the factual and legal findings contained in the IJ's opinion, including those aspects not discussed by the BIA. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). We review the IJ's adverse credibility finding under the substantial evidence standard, which requires that the decision be supported by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence in the record. Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 116 (2d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). While this standard is highly deferential to the IJ, we must determine whether the IJ has provided specific, cogent reasons for the adverse credibility finding and whether those reasons bear a legitimate nexus to the finding. Id. at 117. If the testimony provided is generally consistent, rational, and believable, the presence of some inconsistent testimony need not necessarily be fatal to a petitioner's claims if the disparities are relatively minor and isolated and do not concern material facts. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 335 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). [1] In cases of this sort, therefore, we look to see whether there are significant issues that were raised before the BIA on which the BIA made errors. [2] In Chenery I, the Supreme Court held that in reviewing a determination or judgment which an administrative agency is alone authorized to make, the reviewing court must evaluate such a decision solely by the grounds invoked by the agency. S.E.C. v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947) ( Chenery II ) (referring to its decision in S.E.C. v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943) ( Chenery I )). That is, we cannot substitute our judgment of what would be a more adequate or proper ground for a decision if the agency's decision did not rest on those grounds. To do so would propel the court into the domain which Congress has set aside exclusively for the administrative agency. Id. Consequently, if we find an error in the BIA's decision on an issue that was exhausted before it, because we cannot substitute our judgement for that of the agency, Chenery I would seem to require us always to remand. We have, however, held that consistent with Chenery I we may affirm an adverse credibility determination even when the IJ's reasoning is deficient, provided that we can confidently predict that upon a reconsideration cleansed of errors, the agency would reach the same result. Lin Zhong, 480 F.3d at 117; Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 395, 401-02 (2d Cir.2005). [3] If, instead, there are reasons for doubting that the agency would come out the same way, then we cannot say that remand would be futile. Such reasons can be any number of sorts. For example, the agency may have changed its position on a critical issue since the appealed decision, or the law may have otherwise changed. Another instance that could defeat futility is if a petitioner could, on remand, proffer materials to the agency that were not brought to the agency before and that are of a strength sufficient possibly to convince the agency to come out differently. Such materials might be newly found and therefore not before the agency earlier, but they might also be matters that had not previously been adequately considered because they were not brought to the BIA's attention on the first go-around. In all such instances, we cannot be confident that remand on the basis of the error the agency did commit would be an empty and unnecessary formality, Lin Zhong, 480 F.3d at 117, and hence remand is necessary. It is important to note that such a remand does not give a petitioner an unwarranted second bite at the apple. What materials and matters may be raised on a remand is always subject to the relevant statutes and BIA regulations. As a Court, we only look to what could be considered by the agency on remand, and decide whether, given Chenery I and the errors made by the agency the first time, remand is useless and thus futile. Moreover, there is nothing in this approach that is inconsistent with the reasons for our refusal to review unexhausted issues. When we held in Theodoropoulos v. INS, 358 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.2004), that a district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a habeas claim where the petitioner did not exhaust his remedies before the BIA, we emphasized the importance of exhaustion when reviewing decisions of administrative agencies. Id. at 165. We noted that because we are not in a position to make the ultimate decision on facts that can be read in multiple ways until we have the benefit of the BIA's judgment on them, it was essential that each issue be exhausted before the BIA. Only when we have the agency's judgment to review can we adequately consider the relevant issues. But when we remand on the basis of exhausted issues, because we are not confident of what the BIA would do on remand with respect to other questions, we do not ultimately consider any issues that the BIA has not reviewed. Our decision to remand asks only whether, in addition to the errors that the BIA has made, there are other issues that are plausible enough so that, on reconsideration, the agency might change its decision. What we do is simply give the BIA an opportunity to make its decision cleansed of errors, which only then becomes subject to our review. With that in mind, we turn to the case at hand.