to testify in the district court because she died before trial. For that reason, the district court relied on her 1994 sworn statement and the transcript of her 1998 testimony before the immigration judge. The district court’s adverse credibility determination rested on, among other things, inconsistencies in her initial sworn statement, which twice stated that Petitioner was born in Mexico, and a lack of intimate details in that testimony. Those grounds, which the record bears out, suffice to support the adverse credibility determination under the deferential standard of review enunciated in Rule 52(a)(6). It is well settled that a fact-finder may rely on inconsistencies to support an adverse credibility determination. See, e.g., Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1235 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. McCarty, 648 F.3d
holding that any alleged inconsistencies in dates that reveal nothing about a petitioners credibility cannot form the basis of an adverse credibility finding holding that inconsistencies  adequately support the administrative law judges alj  adverse credibility finding holding that inconsistencies in the aliens statements must go to the heart of the asylum claim to justify an adverse credibility finding holding that history of dishonesty can support an adverse credibility finding holding that where adequately supported credibility findings are for the alj to make