the petition in part and remand to the BIA. Asylum and Withholding Claims The BIA and IJ based their adverse credibility determination on (1) a single inconsistency in Cordova’s testimony regarding the year he was shot for the first time and (2) an assertion that Cordova’s claim that he was forcibly tattooed is inherently implausible. 1. In focusing on one date inconsistency in Cordova’s otherwise consistent testimony, the IJ and BIA failed to “recognize that the normal limits of human understanding and memory may make some inconsistencies or lack of recall present in any witness’s case.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044-45 (9th Cir.2010). o account all of the relevant factors when concluding that Cordova’s story of forcible tattooing was inherently implausible. See id. at 1040 (<HOLDING>). The BIA and IJ relied heavily on Deputy
holding that an adverse credibility determination under the real id act must take into account the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors holding that a determination of unfair discrimination requires a court to consider all aspects of the case and the totality of all the circumstances holding that after the real id act the ij must still provide specific examples of a petitioners demean or that would support this basis for an adverse credibility determination holding that adverse credibility determinations under the real id act must take into consideration the individual circumstances of the applicant holding that the level of detail in testimony is a relevant factor in the totality of the circumstances test of credibility employed by immigration judges