Cir.2007). Thus we must address the legal question of whether the IJ properly applied the evidentiary standard. The IJ found that Sillah’s testimony was “[injsufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he last arrived in the United States on May 29, 2002.” The IJ’s conclusion rests on his supporting finding that Sillah could not remember the name of the person whose fraudulent passport and visa he used and claimed he was never questioned by an immigration officer either upon departing Sierra Leone or upon entering the United States, and because his testimony as to his entry date lacked corroboration. Given that Sillah’s testimony was undisputed and must be accepted as true, the IJ’s conclusion was clearly erroneous. See Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). II. The IJ found, in the alternative, that
holding that ij failed to make explicit credibility finding when he described applicants testimony as general and meager making his demand for corroborating evidence improper holding that no corroborating evidence required from asylum applicants who have testified credibly holding remedy for lack of sufficient corroborating evidence is acquittal holding that the corroborating evidence need not be medical evidence if the appellant explains why medical evidence is not available holding that in light of an applicants omission of various relevant facts from his asylum application substantial evidence supported the ijs adverse credibility determination