Opinion ID: 3029668
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Credibility Claim

Text: Shah first claims the IJ erred in finding his testimony incredible. Because the IJ’s finding is supported by substantial evidence, we reject this claim. An adverse credibility finding must be supported by “specific cogent reasons” that “bear a legitimate nexus to the finding.” Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 276 (3d Cir. 2002). “We look at an adverse credibility determination to ensure that it was appropriately based on inconsistent statements, contradictory evidences, and inherently improbable testimony in view of the background evidence on country conditions.” Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 249 (3d Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Adverse credibility findings based on “speculation or conjecture, rather than on evidence in the record, are reversible.” Gao, 299 F.3d at 272. Furthermore, the underlying basis of 4 an adverse credibility determination must go to the heart of the alien’s claims.1 Id. The IJ based her credibility finding on the following. First, she disbelieved Shah’s claim that he was a PPP leader. Shah was a seaman, and testified to being away on ships for up to 12 months at a time. The IJ thought it unlikely that someone who was absent from his village for long periods could be sufficiently involved in politics to rise to the level of a party leader. Second, she found it unusual that, as a party member for nearly 30 years and a party leader for over 10 years, he never attended or spoke at a PPP demonstration until 1998, just before his leaving for the U.S. Third, the IJ doubted that the Pakistani government ever sought to arrest Shah. Shah admitted to working for nearly 20 years for the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, a company owned by the government. In addition, he continued his work as a seaman through December 1998, well after a warrant was issued for his arrest. Had the police really been interested in arresting Shah, the IJ reasoned, they could have easily contacted his long-time government employer and discovered his whereabouts. Finally, the IJ doubted Shah’s testimony about his being a wanted man. Shah testified that he requested permission from the government to leave on the June 20, 1998 voyage. Both the filing of this request and 1 The Real ID Act of 2005 changes the standards governing credibility determinations, such that a determination may be made “without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claims.” Pub.L. 109-13, div. B, § 101(a)(3)(B)(iii), 119 Stat. 231, 303 (to be codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). This provision applies only where an alien has filed for asylum, withholding of removal, or other relief after the effective date of the Act, May 11, 2005. Because Shah applied for relief in 2003, this provision does not apply to his claims. 5 the government’s subsequent granting of it occurred after a warrant was allegedly issued for Shah’s arrest. The IJ found it unbelievable that the government, who Shah now claims wants to harm him, would have granted him express permission to leave the country if it truly sought to arrest him. Because these inconsistencies are supported by the record and could lead a reasonable adjudicator to doubt the veracity of Shah’s claims, we are not compelled to overturn the IJ’s determination that Shah lacked credibility.