Kaur

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioners Surinder Kaur and her minor son Ikram Pipal seek review of two final orders issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).

The conclusion of the BIA that Kaur’s testimony is not credible is supported by substantial evidence. Sidhu v. I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir.2000). “While accorded deference, a credibility determination must be supported by a specific, cogent reason. An adverse credibility ruling will be upheld so long as identified inconsistencies go to the heart of [the] asylum claim.” Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004) (internal citation *749 and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). An immigration judge (“IJ”) may find the applicant to be not credible if “a dramatic, pivotal event [] had been omitted from his asylum applications.” Alvarez-Santos v. I.N.S., 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir.2003). Here, Kaur testified about six rapes while her declaration discussed only one. Moreover, there are discrepancies regarding the details of the one rape Kaur did describe within both her declaration and her testimony. Because the number and circumstances of the rapes are crucial details that go to the heart of her asylum…