Opinion ID: 217244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plausible Implausibilities

Text: Next the majority defers to the IJ's finding of chronological implausibilities that supported his adverse credibility finding. When reviewing credibility determinations based on discrepancies or implausibilities, we normally conduct a three-pronged analysis: first, we determine whether the discrepancies articulated by the IJ and/or the BIA are actually present in the administrative record; second, we look to whether the discrepancies generate specific and cogent reasons from which to infer that petitioner or his witnesses provided non-creditworthy testimony; and third, we examine whether the petitioner failed to provide a persuasive explanation for these discrepancies. Cuko, 522 F.3d at 37. The IJ's finding glaringly fails the second prong. The IJ found it implausib[le]. . . that the respondent would be arrested and beaten eight years after his protest march in February of 1992. The purported chronological implausibility also included the six-week gap between Dehonzai's statements at work and his second detention. The IJ's reasoning for finding these implausible was that the chronology just does not work. This analysis does not set forth any specific and cogent reason as to why the chronology should be viewed as implausible in order to support an adverse credibility determination. See Cuko, 522 F.3d at 37; see also Wiratama, 538 F.3d at 4. Indeed, not once in these proceedings has anyone posited an actual rationale for why this chronology just does not work. Any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find the IJ's conclusion a baseless tautology; deferring to this shell of a legal analysis renders our review meaningless.