Avetisyan

MEMORANDUM **

Alla Avetisyan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.

The BIA’s determination that an alien is “not eligible for asylum must be upheld if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 , 112 S.Ct. 812, 815 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (internal quotation *892 marks omitted). “It can be reversed only if the evidence presented ... was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed.” Id. When an alien seeks to overturn the BIA’s adverse determination, “he must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Id. at 483-84 , 112 S.Ct. at 817 ; see also Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995). Credibility determinations are judged by the same basic standard. See Chun He Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004); Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002); de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391 , 393 (9th Cir.1997). In…

dissenting.

BERZON, Circuit Judge.

I do not agree that the Immigration Judge (IJ)’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. Each of the reasons offered by the IJ as a basis for finding Avetisyan’s testimony not credible was either wholly speculative or unsupported by the record. Accordingly, I would grant the petition for review and remand the matter to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings.

Our cases make clear that we “do not accept blindly an IJ’s conclusion that a petitioner is not credible” but instead “examine the record to see whether substantial evidence supports that conclusion and determine whether the reasoning employed by the IJ is fatally flawed.” Osorio v. INS, 99 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir.1996). Although given substantial deference, a finding of adverse credibility cannot be based on “conjecture and speculation,” Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1199 (9th Cir.2004), and the IJ must provide a “specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.” He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 595 (9th Cir.2003). In addition, “[mjinor discrepancies, inconsistencies or omissions that do not go to the heart of an applicant’s claim do not…