The following excerpt is from Zheng v. Holder, 09-4957-ag NAC (2nd Cir. 2011):
insignificant and because the interpreter at the hearing had "cut off" his answers. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that the agency need not credit an applicant's explanations for inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would compel a reasonable fact-finder to do so). Moreover, the proffered explanation fails to account for inconsistencies about his initial reaction to the officials, the number of officials who came to his home, and how he learned of the forced abortion.
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.