*4 appealed to this Court. THACKER,. Before GREGORY and disposition pri- of this case turns HAMILTON, Judges, Circuit and Senior marily discrepancies between Petition- Judge. Circuit stages
er’s statements different of the by published opinion. Petition denied asylum process. Accordingly, we detail Judge opinion, wrote the GREGORY below the relevant and materials Judge Judge which THACKER and Senior interviews, hearings, from Lin’s and writ- joined. Judge HAMILTON THACKER application asylum. ten for separate concurring wrote a opinion. Interview, Border Patrol
GREGORY, Judge: Circuit August 20, 2009 Qing petitions Hua Lin this Court for review of an order of the Board of Immi- Lin was interviewed Border Patrol (“Board”) gration Appeals dismissing Agent immediately upon being appre- her (the appeal Immigration Judge’s entering country from the hended “Border (“IJ”) “interview”). finding eligi- During order that she was not Patrol interview” or removal, interview, asylum, withholding ble for Lin that she was not or stated had one deferral of removal under the Convention married and child. JA (“CAT”). Against purpose Torture For the asked what her rea- When below, States, deny petition entering sons stated we the United she re- sponded population reg- for review. avoid control “[t]o asylum application, asked of her JA 229. When ulations China.” Lin persecution sent also submitted several documents: an she feared whether China, that she abortion certificate from the First Hospital she indicated back Fuzhou, children, Yang a notice from Zhong more and Vil- planned have lage committee that Lin requesting appear forced to have an abortion or she would be for an ligation pregnancy checkup, if she became IUD and a undergo tubal from Yang Zhong Village also stated notice Commit- pregnant again. JA 235. She notifying tee Lin that she had get that she feared she would be unable violated the Finally, family planning regulations fining married if she was sterilized. 10,000 yuan. Lin given that because she had JA 273-80. also submit- explained wedlock, mother-in-law, ted a statement from her birth out of which is seen China, providing that Lin and her son mar- “anti-cultural” she instructed were ried 2004. JA 285. Her son to refer to her as “Auntie.” Id. mother-in-law described forced abortion and how family planning officials continue to visit Hearing, Fear Credible regular her house on a looking basis September 18, 2009 Finally, Lin and her husband. JA 285. By this time Lin had retained an attor- Lin submitted a statement from her hus- ney. During hearing, provided band. He the two were *5 interview, Patrol contrast to the Border in September married 2004 and that the Lin that she was married to a man stated marriage “permitted was and blessed.” continued to re- Jiang, named Dehua who JA 294. He also recounted the circum- side in China with their son. JA 573. stances of Lin’s forced abortion and the Notably, she also stated that she left Chi- couple’s refuge decision that she seek undergo na because she had been forced the States. JA 294-95. United 24, January an unwanted abortion on 2008. JA 574. This fact was not mentioned dur- Department Report on China State Patrol interview. Follow- ing Lin’s Border government The a re- submitted abortion, into ing the her husband went Department from the port United States hiding for fear that he would be sterilized population poli- on control State China’s encouraged refuge and he Lin to seek report that cies. JA 26-27. stated the United States. JA 575. policies longer strictly the were no en- that re-
forced and there have been few Asylum Application Supporting and ports of forced abortions or sterilizations
Documents Fujian twenty Province over the last years. Id. 28, 2010, Lin April On submitted an and a written state- application Hearing, August 31, First Merits that Lin provided ment. The statement gave following testimony sup- the 8, Jiang September married on 2004. JA port of her claim before an IJ on 2005, the
246. four months after birth 31, August 2010: son, family officials from planning of her 8, government Jiang September forced Lin to Lin married the Chinese child, son, only a to 2004. JA 101. Their implanted have an IUD and submit on March 2005. JA 102. regular gynecological checkups. Id. The was born birth, family plan- forced Four months after his statement also discussed the 2008 and took ning officials came to her home abortion. and Submission of office to insert an Status Conference her to a birth control Evidence, that Additional Government 103-04. Lin was instructed IUD. JA chec- would have to attend seasonal November she inserted kups to ensure the IUD remained conference in the The IJ held status pregnant not become and that she had 16, 2010. At the matter on November again. JA 103. government requested the hearing, additional evidence that the court consider learning that January On after part of Lin’s file but had not been family pregnant again,1 plan- Lin was five attorneys government’s discovered ning officials came to Lin’s rented house until after the close of evidence. JA 175. van, City, her into a and Fuzhou forced The additional evidence consisted of on her at performed an unwanted abortion September recorded notes from Lin’s hospital. a local JA 109-12. After 2009 Border Patrol interview. Id. Over procedure, she was told that she would objection, Petitioner’s the IJ decided to 10,000 fine, that if pay yuan have to accept the evidence and hold a second did not her husband would be arrested she evidentiary hearing parties so the would forcibly sterilized. to address the new opportunity have by the IJ whether she was When asked evidence. Id. given any regarding documentation abortion, originally Lin stated that she was Hearing, Merits Second not, days procedure but a few after the she January 31, 2011 requested an hospital returned to the hearing, At the Lin was asked second abortion certificate. asked JA When why Agent she told the Border Patrol document, why requested she she first during the not mar- interview she was “proof wanted to have stated responded, village, ried. Lin our our “[i]n future,” and because she “assumed *6 is, the, you if practice you did not have ... human I rights, that America has and know, banquet, you if did not have the think that certificate will be in the useful ceremony, you really [are not] Chinese future.” 114. The IJ then asked her JA married.” When asked considered] already planning to come whether she was why responded differently she at the credi- America, yet to and she stated “not ... hearing, attorney ble fear she said that her just assumed that this certificate would be had told her the interim that “in the useful to me in the future.” JA 115. Un- if you registered United States at the Lin questioning, changed der further then ... you court are considered as married.” answer, that stating requested her she essence, In Lin con- blamed the so she could take a document vacation tradictory testimony on a cultural misun- that from work. Id. When the IJ noted conceded, however, derstanding. Lin that self-employed, changed Lin was she her registered marriage she her with the Chi- that again, stating answer once she was government nese 2004. JA 186. planning applying fact why requested questioned United States at the time she was also she did thought during the documentation and it would be mention the forced abortion helpful vague for that JA 116-117. Border Patrol interview. purpose. private pregnant again. JA 1. Lin and her husband hired a doctor become 294. secretly remove her IUD to allow her to married, answers, only she indicated that was after she was con- non-responsive told fronted with her inconsistent conducting the interview did Agent her explanation.” “manufaeture[ ] of her claim and she JA provide not to details her also story judge full to a 62. IJ found Lin’s husband’s could tell her she referring marriage also stated that affidavit to their as 193-95. She later. JA “permitted room on the and blessed” undercut Lin’s did not think there was she a misunderstanding. answers. claim of Agent’s form to record detailed JA IJ, greater significance Of even to the however, was Lin’s failure to mention her B. during forced Patrol abortion Border 1, 2011, the IJ issued a deci- On March interview. Id. The explained: IJ asylum, denying applications sion Lin attempted to blame the omission on removal, un- withholding protection patrol rushing the border officer her. CAT, der the and ordered her removed to repeatedly evasive and unre- [Lin] The IJ found Lin not China. JA 50-65. sponsive directly when asked whether inconsistencies, light “in of the credible patrol she told the border officer that and contradictions” in her implausibilities, Only she had forced abortion. after state- testimony, application, and her being repeatedly asked did admit [Lin] Patrol during ments the Border interview. patrol that she did not tell the border IJ also found that Lin’s at- JA 61. The alleged officer about her forced abortion. the inconsistencies and tempts explain attempted explain [Lin] ], “vague[ non-respon- omissions were to tell the officer about the abor- wanted ][,] provide and did not credible ex- sive[ tion, but he told her that there was no planations.” Id. space judge. for details and to tell the Specifically, the IJ noted that Lin told explanation entirely The Court finds this Agent the Border Patrol that she was not alleged incredible. The forced abortion married and: detail, is not a but rather is the crux of that she would be was afraid [S]he entire claim.... It [Lin’s] forced to have an abortion or tubule [sic] therefore, wholly implausible, that [Lin] ligation and that she were forced to experience not have mentioned an would ligation, have a tubule she was [sic] pivotal and traumatic as forced afraid that she would never be able to abortion, oppor- when she had sufficient *7 get Despite discussing her married. tunity to other details about describe abortion, fear of a future forced [Lin] alleged returning her fear of to China. that patrol did not tell the border officer Id. had a previously she had forced abor- contrast, tion. In marked testified [Lin] The IJ also noted that he had reserva- already that married in Court she credibility Lin’s even before tions about have an and had been forced to abortion. regarding the forced abortion the omission light. Specifically, to Id. the IJ explanations JA 61. The IJ found Lin’s came explanations for “wholly inadequate implausible inconsistencies found Lin’s certificate. why that she obtained the abortion and incredible.” Id. The IJ noted changed The noted that Lin misunderstanding” explana- “cultural JA 63. IJ times, first testimony un- on this issue several regarding tion her marital status was requested the certificate during stating fact that her first that she dermined pro- she knew the United States hearing repeatedly she testified that she because authority to set and that IJs have the rights, stating human then tected vacation, given that Lin was to take a and extend deadlines and needed it in order original to the finally reverting opportunity respond back to her to new evi- then position. Id.2 dence. Id. inconsistencies, the IJ de-
Given these II. that Lin’s was not termined Noting that an adverse credible. JA A. can overcome credibility determination independently prove past if the alien can Board affirms and Where the that Lin persecution, the IJ determined decision, adopts the IJ’s we review both sufficient evidence to provided had not action. Mar agency decisions as the final the victim of a forced abor- prove she was Holder, ynenka tion. Id. The IJ discredited the abortion Cir.2010). to obliged uphold We are suspect unauthenticated and certificate as agency’s determination unless it is “mani testimony, noted the light of Lin’s and contrary and an abuse of festly to the law Department’s report population that State Holder, discretion.” Lizama v. longer strictly enforced in controls are no (4th Cir.2011). agency abus Accordingly, the IJ denied all China. Id. “if a es its discretion it to offer fail[s] of Lin’s claims. decision, explanation for or if reasoned its disregard^] important with the decision it or as agreed distort[s] The Board IJ’s claim.” pertinent parts adopted pects applicant’s in all its deci- of the Tassi v. (4th Cir.2011). It F.3d denying sion Lin’s claims. JA 3-4. only provided “specific held that the IJ and Factual determinations are reviewed they supported by cogent reasons” for the adverse to ensure substan determination, Marynenka, tial repeating the IJ’s concerns evidence. F.3d testimony. sup with Lin’s JA 3. The Board 600. Substantial evidence exists finding the evidence ... was agreed provide port also failed to inde- “unless any adjudicator pendent proving evidence that she suffered such reasonable Additionally, past persecution. compelled the would have been to conclude to rejected contrary.” agency’s of the argument Board Id. Review allowing government applicant overall conclusion that an is ineli IJ’s decision gible similarly violated her limited to submit additional evidence process rights. applicant’s due Id. The Board noted whether the evidence “was such be difficult follow 2. The IJ also mentioned two additional areas about her residence "to First, testimony. of concern with Lin's the IJ generally Although inconsistent. not a thought regarding Lin’s statements where she testimony, significant inconsistency in [her] and her husband lived to be confused and changing account of where she and her IJ, According inconsistent. to the Lin first general husband lived further undermines her they City testified that moved to Fuzhou credibility.” Id. July rented room there in 2007 in order to *8 noteworthy Secondly, thought the IJ it that secretly remove her IUD and have another provide parents Lin did not a letter from her asylum application, child. Id. On her howev- testimony family plan- that to corroborate er, City she listed her address Fuzhou ning every authorities visited their home few beginning in 2004. Id. Lin testified to the days looking for her. Id. The IJ found the actually up until 2007 lived court that given of corroboration unreasonable lack Ming County, parents with her Ho and her testimony regular that she remains in husband would sometimes visit her there. Id. parents. Id. The IJ stated that he found contact Lin's
351 Dankam, have to moval. 495 F.3d at that a reasonable factfinder would 115. The requisite persecu that the fear of alien must establish a “clear probability” conclude Elias-Zacarias, 502 persecution tion existed.” INS v. that she would suffer if repat- 481, 812, 478, 112 117 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d U.S. riated. Id. If an alien meets height- this (1992). very This standard is deferen burden, 38 ened withholding of removal is tial, permit re-weighing and does not a of mandatory. Id. Lin protection also seeks Gonzales, Niang v. the evidence. See CAT, from removal under the which re- (4th Cir.2007) (“[If] rec F.3d quires aliens to demonstrate “that it is plausibly support ord could two results: likely than [they] more not that would be one and the one [the the IJ chose proposed tortured removed to the coun- advances, only ap is petitioner] reversal removal,” try regardless grounds of the court that the propriate find[s] where the for the torture. Id. only supports opposite]
evidence not
[the
it.”)
conclusion,
compels
(quoting
but
Balo
III.
(7th
gun
Ashcroft,
374 F.3d
Cir.2004)) (internal quotation marks omit
A.
ted).
first contends
sub
B.
support
stantial evidence does not
Attorney
in the
INA vests
agency’s
credibility
adverse
determination.
discretionary
grant
“to
power
General the
Applicants
eligibility
can
their
establish
for
qualify
to aliens who
as ‘refu
asylum simply by providing credible testi
”
Gonzales,
gees.’ Dankam v.
495 F.3d
mony
experiences. Marynen
about their
(4th Cir.2007).
refugee
A
is “someone ka,
(citing
well-founded fear of on ac that substantial evidence exists to political opinion’ of ... pro count or other Dankam, it. 119. “We accord grounds.” (quoting tected Id. 8 U.S.C. agency’s credibility broad deference to the 1101(a)(42)(A)). Asylum may § applicants deference, however, This determination. satisfy proving they their bxxrden of absolute, agency for the pro must refugee by meet the definition of a “show specific, cogent making vide reasons for an ing [they subjected either that were] credibility Djad adverse determination.” [they past persecution or have] jou v. Cir. persecution ‘well-founded’ fear of future 2011). recognized have that omis “We race, religion, nationality, ‘on account of sions, inconsistencies, contradictory evi membership particular group, social or inherently improbable dence and testimo ” political opinion.’ Marynenka, 592 F.3d making an ny appropriate bases 208.13(b)(1)). (quoting § at 600 C.F.R. credibility determination.” Id. adverse A an person undergo” who was “forced to only the existence of a few such Even abortion or sterilization “shall be deemed Support inconsistencies can an adverse to have a well-founded fear of persecution credibility Following determination. political account of opinion.” 8 U.S.C. of the REAL ID Act of passage 1101(a)(42). § inconsistency can serve as a for an basis adverse determination “without heightened Aliens face a burden goes to the heart of proof qualify withholding regard [it] of re- to whether *9 several other details of her claim.” 8 U.S.C. mention applicant’s the 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). un- such as the fact that she was past, § wedlock, married, had a child out of and above, agency the As recounted instructed her son to refer to her for the adverse gave multiple reasons importantly, Lin Perhaps “Auntie.” most credibility among Chief determination. acknowledged that she obtained the abor- however, them, the were inconsistencies eye using an tion certificate with toward during the Bor between Lin’s statements help gain asylum it to the United Patrol interview and her later testimo der that al- States. This indicates she was gave Lin ny application materials. significance of the in- ready aware of the contradictory accounts of her shifting, to a future regard cident with any and omitted mention of marital status claim, all the more making her omission reviewing the her forced abortion. After suspect. record, agency the that agree we agree with the IJ’s decision We also pro these omissions and inconsistencies that a cultur- discounting explanation Lin’s justification for the adverse vide sufficient misunderstanding al accounted for her in- credibility determination. marital testimony regarding consistent Lin’s claim that she The foundation of is explanation by Her is undermined status. abortion; subjected was to forced howev- unquali- repeatedly the fact that she er, entering the upon when interviewed fiedly to herself as married referred country, she failed to mention the incident throughout asylum process, only skeptical of such an highly at all. We are change when confronted with her course noted, important agency omission. As the earlier, testimony. inconsistent Further detail, forced is not a but abortion claim undercutting her are her husband’s very claim for rather is the heart Lin’s mar- attesting couple’s affidavit asylum. The traumatic details of the inci- blessed,” riage “permitted and the Lin, including dent as later described statement from her mother-in-law refer- away into a van and being forced whisked ring couple to the as married. Taken to- wholly hospital, implausible to the make it gether, give ample support these facts fail to even mention the she would that Lin’s IJ’s determination during incident the interview. See Xiao v. was not credible. (7th Cir.2008) Mukasey, (holding petitioner’s failure to mention a that, concluding under the in- past during airport forced abortion an case, facts and circumstances of this an terview sufficient warrant adverse inconsistencies and omissions between her determination). credibility The omission Border Patrol interview and her later tes fact particularly suspect light timony agen are sufficient to a fear that specifically referenced determination, cy’s credibility adverse we undergo she would have to future forced relying note our hesitation so extensive China, abortions if she was returned to but ly setting. on statements made in such a previ- failed to the fact that she mention “airport Most so-called interviews” are subjected very ously had been to the same given brief affairs the hours immediate experience. ly following long dangerous and often explanation journeys for the omission—that into the United States. These against basing caution Agent the Border Patrol told her he could circumstances solely claim—is adverse determination not record the details of her and, especially, omissions by the fact that Lin was able inconsistencies undermined
353
mind,
these considerations in
of statements made
such With
we
that arise out
repeat why they fail to
ques-
As evidenced
rescue Lin’s claim
environments.
Lin,
asylum.
purpose
allegation
of these
of a forced
tions asked of
not a
general
evidentiary
to collect
identifica-
abortion is
minor
detail
interviews is
overlooked,
information about the whose absence can be
it is the
background
tion and
Moreover,
very
core of her claim.
alien.
229-30. The
JA
interviews
acknowledgment that
asylum process,
requested
of the formal
and are
she
docu-
part
of
legal
representation
procedure
express
without
mentation
for the
conducted
purpose
supporting
asylum
aware of the el-
a future
and before most aliens are
a claim for
claim indicates that
necessary
ements
she understood the
evidentiary
asylum. Requiring precise
importance
de-
of the incident. We therefore
ignores
simply
the real-
cannot countenance her complete
tail
such circumstances
during
an failure to mention it
ity
places
of the interview
interview.
process
testimony
note that Lin’s
unduly
regard-
onerous burden on an alien who We also
ing her marital
asylum.
later seeks
status was not a mere
omission, but a direct contradiction for
num
significant
It is for these reasons a
which
later
to provide
she
was unable
a
ber of our sister circuits have limited
explanation.
believable
credibility
extent to which
determinations
agree
agency’s
We also
with the
assess-
See,
may
airport
be based on
interviews.
non-respon-
ment that Lin’s demeanor and
Gonzales,
656, 660-
e.cj.,Moab v.
500 F.3d
during questioning
siveness
on certain
(7th Cir.2007)
...
(“[A]irport
61
interviews
topics support
credibility
the adverse
de-
always
are not
reliable indicators of credi
example,
termination. For
Lin’s testimo-
bility.
ques
...
which the
[Interviews
ny
why
requested
as to
she
the abortion
designed
tions asked are not
to elicit the
initially
certificate was
hesitant and con-
claim,
asylum
an
or the
details of
INS
above,
explained
changed
As
fused.
she
follow-up questions
officer fails to ask
finally
times before
admit-
course several
developing
the alien in
his or her
would aid
ting
thought
that she
the certificate would
reliable].”);
account
less
Ramsamea
[are
a future
helpful
supporting
(2nd
Ashcroft,
v.
179
chire
357 F.3d
Similarly,
gave
claim.
Cir.2004)
J.) (“The
in
(Sotomayor,
airport
non-responsive
series of
answers to direct
inherently
terview is an
limited forum for
questions
asking
from the IJ
whether she
express
the alien' to
the fear that will
Agent
told the'Border Patrol
about the
provide the
for his or her
basis
Only
192-95.
under
forced abortion.
JA
claim,
BIA
cognizant
and the
must be
acknowledge
did
repeated questioning
using
the interview’s limitations when
its
procedure.
that she did not mention the
against
asylum applicant.”);
substance
in these areas
dubious
Joseph
see also
v.
600 F.3d
especially significant given
they
(9th Cir.2010)
INS,
(citing Singh
v.
abortion, a
directly
relate
to the forced
Cir.2002)); Tang
292 F.3d
already
there is
consid-
topic about which
General,
Attorney
v.
erable question.
(11th Cir.2009);
Ashcroft,
Zubeda
Cir.2003).
(3rd
sum,
contrary
hereby
compelling
far from
F.3d
We
result,
reliably
the evidence in this case
general agreement
note our
with the con
agency’s
expressed by
supports
cerns
these and other cir
adverse
Niang,
determination. See
agency’s unqualified
cuits over the
reliance
cogent
airport
provided specific
interviews.
511. The IJ
on statements made
*11
objective
in
decision,
and friends are not
evidence
the
and we will
reasons for
Djadjou
in
of con-
662 F.3d
the result
the absence
this context.”
disturb
Cir.2011)
(4th
(citation
contrary.3
vincing
265,
quota
evidence to the
276
omitted).
Lin is
although
tion marks
And
B.
noting
agency
that the
did not
correct
adverse
Although
single item in
specifically analyze every
fatal to an
generally
are
record,
determinations
cataloged
the IJ
all of the
the
claim,
applicant may
prevail
an
still
opinion
at the start of his
evidence
prove
past persecution
actual
she can
in light
his conclusion
of “the to
reached
Camara v.
through independent evidence.
tality of the evidence.” Gandziami-Mick
(4th Cir.2004).
361,
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
369
(4th
Gonzales,
351,
445 F.3d
358
hou v.
properly re
agency
conclude that the
We
Cir.2006).
therefore hold that
the
We
the
that Lin
viewed
record and determined
agency’s finding
supported by
sub
provide independent
to
evidence
failed
manifestly
and is not
con
stantial evidence
demonstrating past persecution.
trary
Djadjou,
to law.
First, discretionary authority IJs have “airport” A so-called or “border” inter extend deadlines for the submis set and place view takes “when an alien is deemed evidence in their courts. See 8 sion of immediately upon entering inadmissible *12 1208.13(a). Second, § the IJ held C.F.R. the United States and indicates an inten hearing an to allow the new additional apply tion to for or a fear perse of fully give examined and evidence to be Gonzales, 624, cution.” Diallo v. 445 F.3d explain prior state opportunity (2d Cir.2006). my colleagues 631 As rec afforded several parties ments. The were ognize, appeals the circuit courts of have In prepare hearing. months to for the uniformly particular held that these inter this, light of Lin has not shown how the carefully views should be for scrutinized right decision limited her to be heard IJ’s reliability being by before utilized the fact- in a manner. therefore meaningful We applicant’s credibility. finder to evaluate an reject process argument. her due See, Holder, 1235, e.g., Joseph v. 600 F.3d (9th Cir.2010); Tang Attorney
1243 v. General, 1270, Y. 578 F.3d 1279 Cir. 2009); Gonzales, Moab v. 500 F.3d stated, deny For the reasons we (7th Cir.2007); 660-61 He Chun Chen for petition review. (3d Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 223-24 Cir. DENIED. PETITION 2004); Ashcroft, Ramsameachire v. (2d Cir.2004). F.3d The reason THACKER, concurring: Judge, Circuit special straightfor for this attention is ward: agency’s This review of the ad- court’s immediately
verse determination entails a place interview takes in after an alien has arrived the United relatively' simple whether sub- inquiry: States, travel, evidence, often after weeks of stantial exemplified by “specific, may by the alien as coer- perceived be reason[s],” cogent exists to the threatening, depending cive or on the agency’s findings. Singh v. Moreover, past experiences. at alien’s (4th Cir.2012) (alteration in F.3d interview, represent- the the alien is not Here, original). although the identified IJ counsel, by may completely ed be secondary negatively a host of factors that immigra- unfamiliar with United States impacted credibility, he identified necessary tion laws and the elements primary stemming two reasons —each asylum. Fi- eligibility demonstrate from Lin’s initial border interview —for his nally, of because those most need (1) credibility finding: adverse the abor- asylum may wary govern- the most of (2) marriage discrep- tion omission and the authorities, BIA mental and review- ancy. Although I find the circumstances ing recognize, evaluating court must of the I am questionable, interview interview, the statements made in an the view such border interviews may entirely that an alien not be forth- caution, with I ulti- should be considered coming the initial interview. mately agree my colleagues’ with conclu- Ramsameachire, agency’s that the findings sion this case Ramsameachire, supported by leading evidence. substantial one of the reason, area, agree For this and because with decisions this Second Circuit approach need to these interviews list of factors set forth a non-exhaustive extreme caution. in- assessing reliability airport terviews: matter, discrepancies As a threshold primarily from noted the IJ are derived
First,
the interview that
a record of
handwritten notes of the translator
paraphrases
or
merely summarizes
“Trans
contained in the document entitled
inherently less reli-
alien’s statements is
of the
Questions.” Although portions
lator
account or tran-
able than
verbatim
responses
reflect Lin’s verbatim
document
Second, similarly less reliable
script.
asked,
slip
questions
portions
to the
other
questions
in which the
are interviews
to be
person
appear
into the third
and thus
designed “to elicit the
asked are not
“summar[y]”
“para
own
or
the translator’s
claim,”
or the
details of an
INS
phrase[]” of Lin’s statements. Ramsa
follow-up questions
fails
ask
officer
(2d
Ashcroft,
meachire v.
developing
alien in
his
that would aid the
.2004).
Cir
*13
Third,
may
or her account.
an interview
Second,
Questions were
the Translator
ap-
deemed less reliable
the alien
be
“to elicit the details of an
designed
not
pears to have been reluctant
reveal
claim,”
any evidence
nor is there
information to INS officials because
follow-up
officer
questioning
“ask[ed]
the
or other co-
prior interrogation sessions
questions
develop-
that would aid
in
[Lin]
experiences in his or her home
ercive
Ramsameachire,
ing ... her account.”
country. Finally, if the alien’s answers
example,
For
the border
cuffed, transported by police car to the testified she patrol border station. She case, present The issue as in so and de- had never seen a firearm before cases, many immigration turns on the felt during in detail the terror she scribed standard of review. While the IJ could If questioning. the initial detention and perhaps have—and should engaged have— subsequent experience account of her analysis in a more detailed of his reasons *14 government at the hands of the is Chinese interview, relying on the border I am believed, may to well have had valid satisfied the record of this case reflects forthcoming than reasons be less the appropriate factors were ade- n governmental authorities in such a situa- deny- I concur in quately considered. thus Ramsameachire, tion. 357 F.3d at .See ing petition for review. 179. case, IJ, not in so this albeit words, many acknowledged each of the concluded,
above circumstances and never
theless, that the border interview was suf
ficiently serve as a basis reliable so
for his adverse determination. America, UNITED STATES compel a con The record here does Plaintiff-Appellee, Gonzales, 492 trary Niang result. See v. Cir.2007) (“[W]here 505, 511 F.3d MONTES-FLORES, Fabian support two results: plausibly
record could Defendant-Appellant. and the one [the one the IJ chose advances, only ap petitioner] reversal No. 12-4760. court that the propriate find[s] where the of Appeals, United States Court only supports opposite] evidence not [the Fourth Circuit. (alterations conclusion, it.” compels but (internal marks and ci original) quotation Sept. Argued: 2013. omitted)). that, tation also observe even Decided: Nov. the lead of the Elev we were follow distinguishing between sim enth Circuit
ple impermissible omissions and contradic