its conclusion regarding this legal question, we return that issue to it for further review.”). 2. We hold that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. See Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2009) (stating the standard of review). In some instances, Petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain the inconsistency; in others, the inconsistencies identified by the IJ and BIA are non-existent, rely on indiscernible testimony, or rest on speculation. See Campos-Sanchez v. INS, 164 F.3d 448, 450 (9th Cir.1999) (“[T]he BIA must provide a petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to offer an explanation of any perceived inconsistencies that form the basis of a denial of asylum.”); Quan v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143-44
holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum holding that in the absence of an adverse credibility determination the court must accept petitioners testimony as true holding that an adverse credibility determination is overturned only if each proffered reason for the determination fails holding that an adverse credibility determination must be supported by a true inconsistency holding when one identified ground for an adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of petitioners claim of persecution the court is bound to accept the ijs adverse credibility determination