Kaur

MEMORANDUM ***

Gurjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her *629 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Kaur contends that the Immigration Judge’s negative credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We deny the petition.

Where the BIA affirms the IJ summarily, as here, we review the IJ’s opinion as if it were the decision of the BIA. Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2007). We review the IJ’s findings of fact under the substantial evidence standard, which means that “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B); see INS v. Elias-Zacari-as, 502 U.S. 478 , 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). An IJ must articulate the basis for his factual findings, and an adverse credibility finding, in particular, must be explained by specific, cogent reasons bearing a “legitimate nexus” to the finding. Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1050 (9th Cir.2006). Moreover, in cases such as…

concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment:

I concur with the majority’s affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and denial of the petition for review. I part ways with the majority, however, over which adverse credibility findings are supported by substantial evidence.

I respectfully disagree with the majority that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding on the basis of Kaur’s failure to inform the Border Patrol Agent of her fear of harm in India. There is no doubt this evidence goes to the heart of Kaur’s asylum claim and undermines her credibility. However, in making adverse credibility determinations, IJs must follow certain guidelines under Ninth Circuit law. One such guideline requires IJs to address, “in a reasoned manner,” the asylum applicant’s explanations for any inconsistencies in the record. See, e.g., Gar-rovillas v. INS, 156 F.Bd 1010, 1014 (9th Cir.1998); see also Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (reversing the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on a discrepancy between the petitioner’s claimed Ahmadi faith and his passport, which listed his religion as Muslim,…