Opinion ID: 202761
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: 6 The attorney general may not remove an alien whose life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). The alien bears the burden of proving that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted. Sharari v. Gonzáles, 407 F.3d 467, 474 (1st Cir.2005). 7 Where the BIA has adopted the IJ's credibility determination, as here, we review the determination of the IJ. Chen v. Gonzáles, 418 F.3d 110, 113-14 (1st Cir. 2005). The BIA has previously stated that an alien may be found incredible based on discrepancies in testimony where (1) the discrepancies and omissions described by the Immigration Judge are actually present; (2) these discrepancies and omissions provide specific and cogent reasons to conclude that the respondent provided incredible testimony; and (3) the respondent has not provided a convincing explanation for the discrepancies and omissions. Matter of A-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1106, 1109 (BIA 1998); see also Hoxha v. Gonzáles, 446 F.3d 210, 216-17 (1st Cir.2006) (applying test from Matter of A-S- ). However, an adverse credibility determination cannot rest on trivia but must be based on discrepancies that `involved the heart of the asylum claim.' Bojorques-Villanueva v. INS, 194 F.3d 14, 16 (1st Cir.1999) (citation omitted). 8 We then review an IJ's overall findings of fact to see if they are supported by substantial evidence. Sharari, 407 F.3d at 473. We afford de novo review to the BIA's legal conclusions, but cede some deference to its interpretations of the [Immigration and Nationality Act]. Da Silva v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2005). 9