MEMORANDUM

Li Ren, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions this court to review the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture. In her application, Ren had claimed that she qualified as a “refugee,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1), alleging that she suffered persecution for her opposition to China’s population-control policies and her activism against municipal corruption. The IJ denied relief, concluding that she lacked credibility; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the adverse credibility determination and adopted the reasoning that the IJ articulated.

We review findings of fact underlying the denial of asylum applications, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.2011). The IJ must provide “specific, cogent reason[s]” underlying his conclusions that “bear a legitimate nexus to the finding,” Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted); but he is not constrained to “reeit[e] ... unique or particular words,” de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391 , 394 (9th Cir.1997).

In his oral decision denying Ren’s application, the IJ specifically concluded that her “testimony has not been consistent”; that she “was many times evasive and not answering the questions to the point where the court had to instruct her”; and that, upon having “the opportunity to observe [her] demeanor,” she had “memorized [her testimony] as far as the statement that she had put before the court.” One or more of these grounds bore a legitimate nexus to his finding. The IJ may properly consider materially inconsistent testimony, evasiveness, and demeanor in evaluating an applicant’s credibility.

These various grounds, on which the IJ expressly relied in finding Ren not to be credible, find adequate support in the administrative record.

PETITION DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.