of identity and nationality, Doumegno asserts an error of law because the BIA failed to properly articulate Doumegno’s burden of proof and the IJ fashioned an evidentiary presumption which had never before been articulat.ed. • However, it is well-established an asy lum seeker bears the burden of proving identity and nationality. An asylum-seeker must “confront the basic burden of establishing her identity and nationality” when they “are legitimately in question.” Diallo v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 451, 454 (8th Cir.2007). An asylum-seeker’s “proof of her identity and nationality are fundamental, and when called into question, [the petitioner] must present adequate explanation or risk a lack of credibility finding.” Id. at 455 n. 3; see also In Re O-D-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1079, 1081 (BIA 1998) (<HOLDING>). Neither the BIA nor the IJ committed legal
holding alien was found when he admitted previous deportation and true identity to ins agent not when he used alias during jailhouse interview with ins agent agents investigated his identity with appropriate methodical diligence and could not have known his identity prior to his admissions holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that changing the date and amount of the larceny under the circumstances of that case changed the identity of the offense holding that where identity is disputed and underlying the entire record is the respondents fundamental claim that he is a citizen and national of a certain country and seeks refuge therefrom a petitioner has the burden of establishing identity nationality and citizenship holding that evidence of the same name and that the former conviction was in same city and same court as the present case and the fact that the defendant did not offer any testimony to rebut the prima facie evidence of identity was sufficient to establish identity