credible testimony can sustain this burden of proof without corroboration, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B). On the other hand, an IJ may find an applicant's testimony not credible if he “fails to present certain foundational evidence.” Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492, 502 (7th Cir.2004). To ensure t tance of Lopez’s asylum claim and determined that he had not met his burden of proving past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of religion or membership in a particular social group. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)®, 1101(a)(42)(A). We may uphold the denial of asylum on the basis of this latter determination if substantial evidence supports it. Hui-Mei Li v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 681, 684-685 (7th Cir.2005). The attacks on Lopez never amounted to perse Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). The IJ did not err in concluding that the
holding that the court abused its discretion where the delay cannot not reasonably be attributed to the plaintiff alone holding that hearsay within a police report was inadmissible holding that an ij could not consider a police report as part of the record of conviction to determine whether an alien had committed a firearms offense because the police report could encompass many offenses with which the alien was never charged or convicted holding that witness statements in police report inadmissible holding that actions of kazakh thugs could be attributed to government where police responded to petitioners assault report by saying they had more important things to take care of