Aden

MEMORANDUM **

Where as here a petitioner challenges credibility determinations that served as the basis for an adverse asylum decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”), that decision is upheld so long as it is supported by “substantial evidence” (Ramos-Vasquez v. INS, 57 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir.1995)). And where the Board has simply adopted findings of the immigration judge (“IJ”), we review the IJ’s decision for such substantial evidence (Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 862 (9th Cir.2001)). To prevail under that deferential standard a petitioner must establish that “the evidence not only supports, but compels, contrary findings” to those of the IJ (id.). Conversely, for us to affirm her findings, the IJ must only have articulated a “legitimate” as well as “specific, cogent reason” to question the petitioner’s credibility — a “reason[] [that] must be substantial and bear a legitimate nexus to the finding” (Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because the IJ has done so here, petitioner Nouman Aden (“Aden”) has not met his burden.

Several discrepancies in the record caused the IJ to doubt Aden’s credibility. Most…