The following excerpt is from Zhu v. Lynch, 14-585 NAC (2nd Cir. 2015):
was inconsistent, but argues that his inconsistent answers resulted from "confusion." He elaborates no further, and his explanation does not "demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony." Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotations omitted).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.