Bingxu Jin v. Eric Holder, Jr.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the petitioner’s misrepresentations of his residence to change venue were relevant to his credibility because they showed “dishonesty with the immigration court” and were “more than typographical errors or utterly trivial inconsistencies”
• articulating that “[t]he IJ may also consider inconsistencies between the petitioner’s statements and other evidence of record”
• explaining that when the agency identifies “the instances where the petitioner is non-responsive,” non-responsive testimony may support an adverse credibility determination
• explaining that “trivial inconsistencies” that “have no bearing on the petitioner’s veracity” cannot form the basis for an adverse credibility determination (internal quotations and citations omitted)
• upholding an adverse credibility finding based in part on the petitioner’s lack of detailed testimony about his religious beliefs
• upholding adverse credibility determination when there were “many instances where the IJ explicitly said that [the witness’s] answer was nonresponsive”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).