Opinion ID: 3023130
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Administrative and Judicial Standards

Text: We have the power to review only a “final order of removal” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Ordinarily, courts of appeal review the decisions of the BIA and not those of an IJ. Where the BIA does not render its own opinion and either defers to or adopts the opinion of the IJ, “a reviewing court must, as a matter of logic, review the IJ’s decision to assess whether the BIA’s decision to defer was appropriate.” Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 271 (3d Cir. 2002); Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 549 n.2 (3d Cir. 2001). Our scope of review is extremely narrow. Given the strong implications for foreign policy and “[b]ecause Congress has delegated authority over the immigration laws to the Attorney general, who in turn vested that authority in the [BIA], principles of Chevron deference apply in the immigration context.” Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 591 (3d Cir. 2003); Gao, 299 F.3d at 271. A grant of asylum under § 1158(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) allows an otherwise removable alien to remain in the United States. The Attorney General may grant asylum if an alien demonstrates that he or she meets the definition of a “refugee” under § 1101(a)(42)(A), that is, a person unable or unwilling to return to his or her county of origin “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” The applicant “bears the burden of establishing that he or she falls within the statutory definition of ‘refugee.’” Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, -5- 482 (3d Cir. 2001). See also 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(a). In order to establish eligibility for asylum on the basis of past persecution, an applicant must show: “(1) an incident, or incidents, that rise to the level of persecution; (2) that is ‘on account of’ one of the statutorily-protected grounds; and (3) is committed by the government or forces the government is either ‘unable or unwilling’ to control.” Gao, 299 F.3d at 272 (quoting Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 655 (9th Cir. 2000)). Such a showing of past persecution raises a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Abdulrahman, 330 F.3d at 592; 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(b)(1). If past persecution is not established, an “applicant can demonstrate that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution by showing that she has a genuine fear, and that a reasonable person in her circumstances would fear persecution if returned to her native country.” Gao, 299 F.3d at 272. Therefore, the “demonstration of a well-founded fear of persecution carries both a subjective and an objective component.” Abdille, 242 F.3d at 495-96. Credibility determinations as well as whether the asylum applicant has demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution are matters for factual determination which are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Gao, 299 F.3d at 272. This court has held that “[f]indings of fact by the IJ . . . will be upheld to the extent that they are ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Abdulrahman, 330 F.3d at 597. Under this standard, -6- reversal is only permitted when “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Gao, 299 F.3d at 272 (quoting INA § 242(b)(4)(B), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). See also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992) (holding that “to obtain judicial reversal of the BIA’s determination, [an applicant] must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”). When reviewing an adverse credibility determination, substantial deference must be afforded to the IJ so long as the decision is grounded in record evidence and the IJ provides specific and cogent reasons for the decision. Abdulrahman, 330 F.3d at 597. While, in general, “minor inconsistencies and minor admissions that ‘reveal nothing about an asylum applicant’s fear for his safety are not an adequate basis for an adverse credibility finding,’” Gao, 299 F.3d at 272 (quoting Vilorio-Lopez v. INS, 852 F.2d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 1988)), if the discrepancies go to the “heart of the asylum claim,” substantial deference must be given. Id. Such deference is appropriate given that the “immigration judge alone is in a position to observe an alien’s tone and demeanor, to explore inconsistencies in testimony, and to apply workable and consistent standards in the evaluations of testimonial evidence.” Abdulrahman, 330 F.3d at 597 (quoting SarviaQuintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1287, 1395 (9th Cir. 1985)). Therefore, an IJ is “by virtue of his acquired skill, uniquely qualified to decide whether an alien’s testimony has about it the ring of truth.” Id. -7-