but she testified that she did only two recordings and discussed ethnic Koreans in both. She also suggests that the Government’s questioning was confusing, but the record reflects that the Government clarified its questions. As to her failure to mention the fourth police visit, Cui explained that she paused after listing the -dates of the first three visits to allow the interpreter to translate, but she did not explain why she stopped mid-answer or immediately thereafter mention the fourth visit, or why her application did not list that fourth visit. Because Cui’s explanations conflict with the record, the IJ reasonably found that the inconsistencies called Cui’s credibility into question. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). In light of these inconsistencies, the IJ was
holding that the agency need not credit an applicants explanations unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so holding that an ij need not credit an explanation for an inconsistency unless the explanation would compel a reasonable fact finder to do so holding that an agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so holding that an agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistencies in the record unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so holding that the agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so