“have [ ] IUD re-insertion.” He testified specifically that the second IUD was inserted in the village and not while his wife was in the hospital. When the IJ asked Yang why it appeared from the application that his wife underwent both an abortion and IUD insertion at the hospital, he responded that women in China do not usually tell men about the timing of such matters and that men do not ask about a woman’s body. The IJ reasonably discredited this explanation. Id. This inconsistency, while perhaps involving a minor detail, was material to Yang’s claim that his wife underwent forced abortions and forced IUD insertions and, when weighed against the entire record, supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Liang Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 454 F.3d 103, 106-07 (2d Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). Notwithstanding any flaws in the IJ’s
holding that an ij need not consider the centrality vel non of each individual discrepancy or omission before using it as the basis for an adverse credibility determination holding that after the real id act the ij must still provide specific examples of a petitioners demean or that would support this basis for an adverse credibility determination holding that an adverse credibility determination is overturned only if each proffered reason for the determination fails holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum holding an ij must to address a petitioners explanation for inconsistencies to rely upon them as the basis for an adverse credibility finding