Opinion ID: 147407
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: New Factual Assertions

Text: The IJ's first basis for questioning the petitioners' credibility is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence. As she noted, the petitioners did not disclose at the airport any details regarding Natasha's rape, Ferrick's political involvement with the Democratic Party, the notice that Ferrick received ordering him to the police station, the incident that caused Ferrick to go into hiding, or the kidnaping of Natasha and Ledia. The IJ accepted the petitioners' explanation that the rape may not have been mentioned because of the cultural and other difficulties of disclosing it, but noted that the omissions extend well beyond the multiple rapes to the very heart of [the petitioners'] claim: [Ferrick's] Democratic Party involvement. She found unconvincing Ferrick's explanation that he did not discuss his political involvement at the airport interview because he did not know how much information to disclose. The IJ also found the petitioners not to be credible because at the airport interview, Ferrick did not state the identities of his daughter's attackers by name, despite the fact that he was able to identify the men during the Merits Hearing. When pressed at the airport for their identities, Ferrick merely identified the men as people from the city. The IJ found that the petitioners did not provide any explanation to resolve the inconsistency and that their failure to do so was a specific reason to support an adverse credibility determination.