raise the issue of the dates before the IJ and also failed to explain why any such discrepancy substantially affected the record. Ye next argues that the border interview was unreliable and urges us to assess its reliability under the Second Circuit standard as set forth in Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 180 (2d Cir. 2004). This Circuit does not require IJs to undertake an inquiry into the reliability of initial interviews with Border Patrol agents using specifically enumerated factors. See, e.g., Conde Cuatzo v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 153, 156 (1st Cir. 2015) (finding inconsistencies across three interviews, including omissions in initial interview with Border Patrol, to support IJ’s adverse credibility determination); see also Jianli Chen v. Holder, 703 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>). Ye has failed to persuade us that the current
holding that a failure to corroborate ones testimony with supporting evidence cannot form the sole 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 bia could rely on a form customarily prepared by border patrol agents in supporting adverse credibility determination because it is normally enough if the ij reasonably finds a proffered piece of evidence to be reliable and its use to be fundamentally fair holding that it is error for an ij to rely upon the petitioners inability to obtain live testimony from persons living abroad to support an adverse credibility determination holding that where the ij finds the petitioner to be credible his testimony must be accepted