(B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2009), affg No. A098 895 904 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 11, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Ming Xia Chen v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir.2006). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99,110 (2d Cir.2008). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The evidence includes Gao’s admission that he repeatedly testified falsely under oath in order to avoid being removed to China, see Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>), and the inconsistency between Gao’s testimony
holding that false arrest is one means of committing false imprisonment holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative holding that in certain circumstances a single false document or a single instance of false testimony may if attributable to the petitioner infect the balance of the aliens uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence holding that a conviction obtained through the knowing reckless or negligent use of false testimony must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury holding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy rule 9b when his complaint did not cite one single false claim arising out of the defendants alleged methodology that may have produced false claim invoices