Opinion ID: 815111
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Location of Children

Text: The IJ’s second difficulty with Ms. Zheng’s testimony concerned her comments about her children. On cross-examination, Ms. Zheng stated that her sister-in-law takes care of the children when she and her husband work in Fort Collins. The following exchange then took place: Q. And where are your children at? A. At home. Q. In? A. Oh, this couple of day, they were in New York. Q. Your children are in New York? A. Because the aunts took them there. Q. Your children don’t even live with you? A. Sometimes, they were with us. Q. When was the last time they lived with you? A. It’s this time when I went to New York to see my attorney. Q. When was the last time they lived with you in Colorado? A. About three months ago. ... Q. And how often do you see your children? A. Once every three to four months. Q. For how long? A. One to two days. R. at 175-76. Ms. Zheng further stated her daughter was only six months old when they moved to Colorado. The couple left her in New York “[b]ecause the baby was very small and transportation is not easy.” Id. at 177. The IJ found this testimony to be “vague and unconvincing,” and also said that there was “no re-direct to clarify any of these inconsistences.” Id. at 109. - 11 - Ms. Zheng objects to the IJ’s consideration of this testimony, claiming only that the IJ improperly judged whether she was a good mother. We do not understand the IJ’s comments as addressing her parenting ability; his opinion was that her testimony was “vague and unconvincing” and contained “inconsistencies.” Id. We fail to see how that finding bears on credibility. Ms. Zheng answered the questions that were posed. Even if her children lived with their aunt in New York, there was nothing inherently unbelievable or inconsistent in her response that they were “[a]t home.” Id. at 175. Instead, this line of questioning appears pertinent to the forum-shopping issue, and the IJ declined to find that petitioners were forum shopping. We also fail to understand the IJ’s comment on the need for re-direct given this testimony’s marginal relationship to credibility and petitioners’ burden of proof. We conclude that Ms. Zheng’s testimony about her children was not a cogent or substantially reasonable basis to find her not credible regarding her fear of future persecution. See Ismaiel, 516 F.3d at 1205; Chaib, 397 F.3d at 1278; Woldemeskel, 257 F.3d at 1192.