Opinion ID: 1349939
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The agency's adverse credibility determination

Text: In evaluating the agency's adverse credibility determination, we consider whether this determination was supported by substantial evidence and based on specific, cogent reasons bearing a legitimate nexus to the determination. Belortaja v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir.2007). The agency may properly base an adverse credibility determination on a discrepancy in the petitioner's evidence if the discrepancy in question goes to the heart of petitioner's claim for relief, see, e.g., Dong v. Ashcroft, 406 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir.2005) (quoting Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 182)  that is, if a `legitimate nexus,' clearly exists between petitioner's claim of persecution and the [discrepancy] giving rise to the IJ's adverse credibility finding, id. (quoting Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003)). Here, the IJ appears to have based her adverse credibility determination on four perceived problems with Leng's evidence. The first was the substantial discrepancy between (1) Leng's claim to have joined the CDP in 2002 and (2) the membership date of 2004 suggested by the other evidence Leng submitted in support of his application  the implication of which, the IJ found, was that Leng had manufactured his political activity in order to suit his asylum claim. See Joint App. 113. The second was the conflict between (1) Leng's claims that he feared persecution by the PRC government on the basis of his CDP membership and political activities and (2) Leng's admission that he visited the PRC consulate in person even after becoming an open member of CDP. The third was the perceived inconsistency between (1) Leng's application to remain in the United States and (2) his claim that the CDP had selected him to recruit new members from Hubei Province. The fourth related to inconsistencies and omissions in the testimony and documentary submissions Leng offered regarding his wife's arrest. Each of the IJ's factual findings was based on record evidence and casts into doubt a claim that bears a close and legitimate relationship with Leng's application for relief. Taken together, these discrepancies provide more than ample support for the IJ's finding that Leng's testimony was neither credible nor plausible. Id. at 113. Our conclusion that the record presents no basis to disturb the agency's adverse credibility determination does not resolve this matter, however, because Leng's application for withholding of removal did not rest on his testimony alone.