Opinion ID: 223400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Berisha’s Application for Relief

Text: Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination in this case. See Shi Jie Ge v. Holder, 588 F.3d 90, 93-94 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency reasonably considered inconsistencies among Berisha’s asylum application, testimony, and submitted evidence. Specifically, Berisha’s application stated that she was threatened and beaten after being terminated from her job, but she testified that she received threats before being fired and was not detained or beaten. Moreover, Berisha testified that in 2001 a man who had previously threatened her about her political activities hit her daughter with his car; her asylum application, however, merely mentions that her daughter was injured in a car accident because the driver was speeding. In addition to these inconsistencies, the medical report Berisha presented to corroborate the 2001 3 incident showed a 1994 hospitalization that pre-dated Berisha’s daughter’s birth, and did not mention a car accident. The agency reasonably determined that the cumulative effect of these inconsistencies was substantial when measured against the record as a whole. See Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006); Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307-09 (2d Cir. 2003), abrogated in part by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).1 In challenging the adverse credibility determination, Berisha argues that the agency erred in refusing to allow her brother to present corroborating testimony. Because, as the government notes, Berisha failed to exhaust this issue by raising it before the BIA, we do not consider it. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-22 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting that judicially imposed exhaustion requirement, while not jurisdictional, is mandatory); Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2004).