Ma

MEMORANDUM ***

The petition before us challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) credibility finding and denial of the petitioner’s motion to reopen. Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s adverse credibility determination, we need not address whether the Board improperly required Ma to provide corroborative evidence to support his application. The Board had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 (b)(3) and 240.53(a), and we have jurisdiction over this timely petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b).

Ma asserts that the Board should not have discredited his testimony because there are reasonable explanations (other than Ma’s untruthfulness) for the inconsistencies and oddities in his testimony. Whether there are plausible explanations under which Ma’s story might be true is not the appropriate test. Rather, we review the Board’s administrative findings to determine whether “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Chen v. INS, 266 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.2001) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B) (Supp. II 1996)). Ma was unable to provide concrete evidence even of his marriage, so the importance of his credibility was heightened.…