# Boubacar Siddy SOW, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Respondent

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · November 3, 2005 · 431 F.3d 84

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/792642

## Case

- **Full name:** Yu Yin Yang v. Alberto R. Gonzales, United States Attorney General, 1
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** November 3, 2005
- **Citations:** 431 F.3d 84; 151 F. App'x 103; 189 Fed. Appx. 1; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23865
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Leval, Straub, Hall
- **Cited by:** 199 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/792642

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that inconsistencies in petitioner's testimony regarding, inter alia, IUD checkups, supported IJ's adverse credibility determination

## Opinion text

SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is denied and the decision of the BIA be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Boubacar Siddy Sow,
pro se,
petitions for review of the BIA decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
This Court reviews the IJ’s decision where, as here, the BIA summarily adopted or affirmed the IJ decision without opinion.
See Arango-Aradondo v. INS,
13 F.3d 610, 613 (2d Cir.1994). This Court reviews an IJ’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, and as such, “a finding will stand if it is supported by ‘reasonable, substantial, and probative’ evidence in the record when considered as a whole.”
Secaida-Rosales,
331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting
Diallo v. INS,
232 F.3d 279, 287 (2d Cir.2000)). Credibility determinations are also typically reviewed under the substantial evidence standard of review, and this Court’s review of an adverse credibility determination is “highly deferential.”
Dong v. Ashcroft,
406 F.3d 110, 111 (2d Cir.2005)
(per
curiam).
In this case, the IJ’s credibility determination was substantially supported by the
*104
evidence as a whole. The credibility determination was based on specific examples in the record of Sow’s contradictory and improbable testimony regarding his arrest, his travels between Guinea and Moscow, and his inability to correctly name the political party to which he claimed to have belonged.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/792642. Public record. Not legal advice.