Opinion ID: 3167560
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevant Standards of Review

Text: When reviewing a removal order denying asylum or withholding of removal, factual findings of the IJ and Board — including adverse credibility determinations — are reviewed for “substantial evidence,” Hachem v. Holder, 656 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2011), and “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). If administrative findings are supported by substantial evidence, the adverse credibility determination is entitled to deference No. 14-4136 Marouf, et al. v. Lynch Page 7 regardless whether the inconsistencies “bear on the heart” of a petitioner’s claims. El-Moussa v. Holder, 569 F.3d 250, 256 (6th Cir. 2009). However, under the substantial evidence standard, “speculation and conjecture cannot form the basis of an adverse credibility finding.” Liti v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 631, 637 (6th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted): Vasha v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 863, 869 (6th Cir. 2003). “[W]hen evaluating credibility, an IJ should be sensitive to misunderstandings caused by language barriers, the use of translators, and cultural differences.” Reyes-Cardona v. Holder, 565 F. App’x 366, 367 (6th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (citing Iao v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 530, 532 (7th Cir. 2005)); see also Mapouya v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 396, 407-09 (6th Cir. 2007) (noting in regard to the IJ’s conclusion that petitioner’s accounts were inconsistent, “this alleged inconsistency is unsupported by the record evidence; the IJ had to impute meaning that was most likely the result of an erroneous translation, and he drew that meaning by ‘speculation and conjecture’ based on general evidence of warfare in Congo at the time.”); Daneshvar v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 615, 623 (6th Cir. 2004) (observing that “[s]ince on remand [the] BIA will exercise its discretion in whether to grant Petitioner’s motion to reopen, we note that a blind acceptance of the IJ’s adverse credibility findings . . . is unwarranted in light of the questionable quality of the interpreters”). And although the “substantial evidence” standard is a deferential one, a reviewing Court of Appeals should still give the administrative decision under review a “hard look.” N’Diom v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 494, 500 n.1 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Administrative review requires a hard look at all of the factors taken together . . . .”); see also Adam B. Cox, Deference, Delegation, and Immigration Law, 74 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1671, 1672 (2007) (arguing that Judge Richard Posner’s “immigration opinions exhibit extremely searching review”); Veena Reddy, Note, Judicial Review of Final Orders of Removal in the Wake of the Real ID Act, 69 Ohio St. L.J. 557, 560 (2008) (noting that “[i]n one year alone, the Seventh Circuit remanded 40 percent of the 136 immigration cases it considered”). Legal questions, meanwhile, are reviewed de novo. Alexandrov v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 395, 404 (6th Cir. 2006). And a discretionary denial of asylum to an otherwise-eligible applicant is reviewable, but is “conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), (b)(4)(D). No. 14-4136 Marouf, et al. v. Lynch Page 8 When the Board reviews the IJ’s decision and issues a separate opinion, rather than summarily affirming the IJ’s decision, this Court reviews the Board’s decision as the final agency determination. Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). But, to the extent the Board adopted the IJ’s reasoning, this Court also reviews the IJ’s reasoning. Id. The Board issued a separate opinion in this case, relying on some of the alleged factual inconsistencies cited by the IJ: the discrepancy in the dates given for the alleged attack on Saed, the discrepancies in the proffered nature of Nancy’s cousin’s injury from the same attack, the apparent discrepancy in how many persons attacked Saed, and the letter from Saed’s mother stating that his nose had been broken in “an accident.” A.R. 3-4. As such, the Board held that it would “not disturb” the Judge’s findings and adverse credibility determination. Id. Thus, the conclusions of the IJ that were adopted by the Board — those relating to the alleged attack on Saed and Nancy’s cousin — are the proper foci of review.