## Facts

- J-Y-C-, a native and citizen of China, attempted to enter the United States at Chicago O’Hare International Airport in August 2005 and was interviewed by DHS officers.
- He was placed in removal proceedings and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, claiming persecution in China based on Christian faith.
- He alleged he first attended a home church on January 1, 2005, was arrested and detained, mistreated during detention, questioned about church leadership, and later lost his job.
- He testified he later hosted home-church meetings on April 10, 2005, and May 25, 2005; he claimed police arrived at the second meeting and he escaped, followed by further harassment.
- The record contained inconsistencies about the length of detention (application initially 24 hours, later 48 hours; sister testified father said 20 hours).
- His sister’s testimony conflicted with his account of the April 10 meeting (she stated she was present about 15 minutes and did not corroborate religious activity).
- The IJ also identified discrepancies between his airport interview statements and later testimony, found parts of his account implausible, cited demeanor concerns, and noted limited corroboration.
- The IJ denied all relief on adverse credibility and failure to meet the applicable burdens; J-Y-C- appealed.

## Issues

1. Under the REAL ID Act credibility provision, may an IJ base an adverse credibility determination on demeanor, plausibility, and inconsistencies without regard to whether inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim, so long as the totality of the circumstances is considered?
2. Whether the IJ properly applied that standard to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.

## Decision

- The BIA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- The BIA held that, under the REAL ID Act, credibility may be assessed using demeanor, plausibility, and inconsistencies in statements, regardless of whether particular inconsistencies relate to the core of the claim, as part of a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.
- The BIA concluded the IJ properly relied on demeanor findings, implausibilities, lack of corroboration, and multiple inconsistencies (including between testimony, written materials, and the airport interview) to support an adverse credibility finding.

## Legal Principles

- For applications governed by the REAL ID Act, a factfinder may base credibility on demeanor, plausibility, and inconsistencies, considering the totality of the circumstances.
- Inconsistencies may support an adverse credibility finding even if they do not concern the central elements of the persecution claim.
- Credibility determinations may be reinforced by the absence of reasonably available corroborating evidence, particularly where credibility is already in question.
- Appellate review may give substantial weight to an IJ’s demeanor-based credibility findings when supported by specific reasons grounded in the record.

## Conclusion

The BIA affirmed the denial of relief because the REAL ID Act permits adverse credibility determinations based on the totality of the circumstances, including demeanor, implausibility, limited corroboration, and inconsistencies that need not go to the heart of the claim, and the IJ’s application of that framework was supported by the record.


In re J-Y-C-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260 (B.I.A. 2007)