The IJ further found that Liu’s demean- or undermined her credibility. Because Liu has not challenged the IJ’s demeanor finding, we deem any such challenge to that finding waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005) (emphasizing that, “[i]ssues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal”). Finally, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by Liu’s deficient corroboration. First, the IJ appropriately declined to give weight to U.S. medical records indicating that Liu had informed a physician of her two alleged abortions, where she had obtained the document after she was placed in removal proceedings. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, the IJ reasonably elected not to
holding that the weight accorded to documentary evidence lies largely within the ijs discretion holding that the weight afforded to documentary evidence  lies largely within the discretion of the ij holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the agency holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lie largely within the discretion of the ij holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the agencys discretion