Opinion ID: 775085
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: General Inconsistency and Vagueness

Text: 22 Finally, we disagree that Chen's second application and testimony was otherwise inconsistent or vague. Contrary to the findings of the IJ and BIA, a close reading of his testimony reveals that his statements about the officials who beat him, his whereabouts after he escaped from the hospital, and the residence of his wife and son were credible and consistent throughout the application process. Moreover, even though Chen did not spontaneously mention his wife's family planning notice when testifying in support of his second application, that does not discredit him. First, the notice was already in evidence and second, he acknowledged the notice when asked. Finally, Chen's descriptions about his escape from family planning officials was concrete and consistent throughout his testimony. The BIA failed to provide the requisite specific, cogent reason for discrediting Chen on this basis. In light of his concrete and consistent testimony, the BIA's general speculation and conjecture about the plausibility of his account does not suffice to find him not to be credible. 23 For these reasons, the BIA's adverse credibility finding is reversed. Given our finding of Chen's credibility, his statements should be accepted as true. See Kataria , 232 F.3d at 1113. 24 Because the BIA did not consider whether Chen had established eligibility for asylum or withholding, the INS contends that we must remand to the BIA to consider the merits of Chen's claim. However, based on sound principles of administrative law and jurisprudence, we generally do not remand a matter to the BIA if, on the record before us, it is clear that we would be compelled to reverse its decision if it had decided the matter against the applicant. Navas, 217 F.3d at 662; see also Gafoor v. I.N.S., 231 F.3d 645, 656 n.6 (9th Cir. 2000). The incremental decision-making that may otherwise follow risks a series of unnecessary and inefficient remands, to the detriment of the party seeking relief. Navas, 217 F.3d at 662. 25 We recognize that based on its adverse credibility finding, it was reasonable for the BIA not to address the merits of Chen's petition for asylum and withholding of removal. However, a review of the complete administrative record before us allows us to properly evaluate Chen's claim for relief. 26