Opinion ID: 2979382
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: The discrepancies surrounding his treatment in jail go to the heart of Lulonga’s claim that he faced persecution for his political opinion. Therefore, we cannot conclude that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find Lulonga credible or that he has established past persecution. See Berri v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 390, 395–96 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[G]iven the number of inconsistencies and the lack of corroborating evidence . . . , the IJ’s credibility determination was a reasonable one.”); Yu, 364 F.3d at 704 (“Although some of the IJ’s grounds seem weak when the discrepancies are viewed in the context of the surrounding record, we cannot say that a ‘reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Accordingly, we DENY Lulonga’s petition for review. 13