(iii)). Even though the evidence presented on remand included the testimony of a DEA officer and a Royal Thai police officer implicating her in drug activity, arrest warrants from both Thailand and the United States, and the petitioner’s own testimony admitting that she had engaged in drug transactions, the petitioner still claims that there was insufficient evidence to meet the “serious reason to believe” standard. However, we agree with the IJ that the “reasonable, substantial and probative evidence presented during the entirety of the petitioner’s removal proceedings” on remand establishes serious reason to believe she is or has been a trafficker of heroin. The petitioner claims that the overwhelming evidence of her involvement in the drug trade should be disregarded because r.2004) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION The outcome of this case
holding that credibility determinations are for the jury holding that an ijs credibility determinations enjoy highly deferential review when supported by specific cogent reasons that bear a legitimate nexus to the findings holding an ijs credibility findings are entitled to deference if supported by specific cogent reasons holding that substantial evidence supports an adverse credibility finding if it is supported by specific cogent reasons holding that explicit credibility finding must be more than passing remark of disbelief and must be supported by specific cogent reasons