Opinion ID: 1390221
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Withholding of Removal: Adverse Credibility Finding

Text: Petitioner challenges the IJ's adverse credibility determination on several grounds. First, he contends that the inconsistencies identified by the IJ are based on mischaracterizations of his testimony. Second, he argues that, even if his evidence was inconsistent, the inconsistencies in question  for example, the discrepancy between the identification numbers shown on the household register document as opposed to the identification cards belonging to petitioner and his wife  do not constitute a sufficient basis for an adverse credibility determination. Finally, he asserts that the abortion and sterilization certificates submitted in support of his application for relief did not conflict with the State Department Asylum Profiles. We find petitioner's arguments unavailing. In Xiao Ji Chen, we noted that the [Immigration and Nationality Act (`INA')] tightly circumscribes our review of factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, by an IJ. 471 F.3d at 333. Therefore, we undertake a highly deferential review of the IJ's findings, id. at 334, look[ing] to see if the IJ has provided specific, cogent reasons for the adverse credibility finding and whether those reasons bear a legitimate nexus to the finding, id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Essentially, our review is designed to ensure merely that credibility findings are based upon neither a misstatement of the facts in the record nor bald speculation or caprice, id. (internal quotation marks omitted). As an initial matter, we note that the IJ appears to have misunderstood petitioner's testimony explanation of how he managed to obtain the funds to pay for his passage to the United States. That is, petitioner testified that he had obtained the money after he came to the United States, but the IJ understood petitioner to be claiming that he had raised this money while he was still in China. We conclude that petitioner's remaining challenges to the IJ's credibility determination are without merit. [3] Nonetheless, even if we were to conclude that the IJ's reliance on this observation was error, which we decline to do, that conclusion would not lead us to disturb the IJ's overall decision. This is because, even leaving aside this observation, the IJ's denial of petitioner's claim for withholding of removal was supported by substantial evidence and we are confident that the same decision would be made in the absence of the [alleged] deficiencies. Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 336. The IJ correctly noted that petitioner's initial testimony as to his date of marriage conflicted with the date shown on the marriage document that petitioner submitted to the IJ. The IJ was also justified in relying on the discrepancy between the Asylum Profile, which states that Chinese family planning officials do not issue written warnings to individuals who fail to comply with the one child policy, and the document petitioner submitted as an official letter which contained just such a warning. Cf. Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir.2006) (In reviewing credibility determinations, our role is generally to evaluate whether the fact-finder made a reasonable determination as to petitioner's credibility.). In addition, the IJ's opinion refers specifically to several findings concerning petitioner's behavior and demeanor at the removal hearing. As we noted in Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep't. of Justice, 426 F.3d 104 (2d Cir.2005): We give particular deference to credibility determinations that are based on the adjudicator's observation of the applicant's demeanor, in recognition of the fact that the IJs ability to observe the witness's demeanor places her in the best position to evaluate whether apparent problems in the witness's testimony suggest a lack of credibility or, rather, can be attributed to an innocent cause such as difficulty understanding the question. Id. at 113. Here, the IJ noted that petitioner was evasive and non-responsive in a manner that suggested untruthfulness, rather than nervousness or difficulty comprehending the proceedings. In accordance with our prior case law, we give particular deference to this finding. Id. Accordingly, we conclude that the IJ provided sufficient reasons for his adverse credibility finding and that the record contains sufficient evidence to support these reasons.