Lan

dissenting:

We defer to an immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding so long as there is a basis in the record for the finding. If the IJ’s finding amounts to nothing more than a guess, it is not supported by substantial evidence. See Zhou v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860, 865 (9th Cir.2006); Shire v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 1288, 1295-96 (9th Cir. 2004).

Here, the lynchpin of the IJ’s ruling was her disbelief of petitioner’s testimony that the Chinese passport bore his photo but his brother’s name. He testified that the passport had been obtained for him by his brother so that he could escape from China. The IJ looked at a photocopy of the passport; the passport did not look phony to her, and so she proclaimed it valid and the petitioner a liar.

It is not inconceivable that the petitioner is, in fact, lying about the provenance of the passport. By the same token, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the passport was obtained just as the petitioner testified. The problem is that there is simply no way one can tell just by looking at it, yet that is exactly what the IJ purported to do. Speculation and conjecture are not entitled to deference.

Furthermore, it is worth noting…

MEMORANDUM **

Xiantong Lan (“Lan”), a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an IJ’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Lan claimed past persecution and a fear of future persecution based on his experiences as a Zhong Gong practitioner. The IJ made an adverse credibility determination in connection with Lan’s failed attempt to establish his identity. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) agreed that Lan had failed to establish his identity. Lan filed a timely petition for review and we deny the petition because we cannot find that the record compels reversal of the adverse credibility determination.

We review the findings of eligibility for asylum and denial of withholding of removal under the substantial evidence standard. Malkandi v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 1029,1035 (9th Cir.2008). Adverse credibility findings are also reviewed for substantial evidence. Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d. 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002). “Under the substantial evidence standard, ‘administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator…