determination must be based on “specific, cogent reasons” that “bear a legitimate nexus” to the finding. Zhou Yun Zhang, 386 F.3d at 74 (quoting Secaida-Rosales, 331 F.3d at 307) (internal quotations omitted). Inconsistent testimony often bears a legitimate nexus to an adverse credibility finding, but it need not be fatal if it is minor and isolated, an ct that we review de novo. See, e.g., Secaida-Rosales, 331 F.3d at 307. We have not ruled conclusively on the significance of official recognition of a marriage to spousal eligibility, though we have remanded at least one forced sterilization case with underage spouses, on different grounds. See Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140 (2d Cir.2003). Other circuits are split on the issue. Compare Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 559 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>) with Chen v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221, 228-29
holding that this lack of any reasonable expectation of continued employment suffices to establish the lack of property in the constitutional sense and hence the lack of a viable due process claim holding that lack of registration did not affect eligibility in light of congress and the bias intent in extending protection to provide relief to couples and to keep families together holding evidence of plastic jeweler bags together with drug ledger amount of drugs and lack of paraphernalia to consume drugs was sufficient to support jurys finding of intent to distribute and absence of money and digital scales was not outcome determinative in light of other evidence holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act holding that eligibility for discretionary relief from a removal order is not a liberty or property interest warranting due process protection