IJ for his finding.” Ding v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 1131, 1137 (9th Cir.2004). We agree with Lin that substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. First, “[tjhis Court [will] reverse[ ] an adverse credibility determination that is based on ‘speculation and conjecture’ and is not supported by evidence in the record.” Salaam v. INS, 229 F.3d 1234, 1238 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam). Here, the IJ concluded that “it makes no sense” that petitioner obtained an Indonesian visa and that she was able to obtain a passport when she was being watched by the police. However, Lin explained why and how she obtained the Indonesian visa and the passport and no evidence in the record contradicted her explanations. See Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1167-68 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the IJ erred in concluding that
holding substantial evidence supported the denial of cat relief where the petitioners cat claim was based on the same testimony the ij found not credible and the petitioner pointed to no other evidence that the ij should have considered holding that the ij impermissibly relied upon personal beliefs and conjecture when the ij expressed her disbelief that the german government would have allowed the petitioner to attend college with no evidence supporting the ijs belief holding that an ij made an explicit credibility when the ij found testimony not credible based on several enumerated inconsistencies holding that the petitioners claim inter alia that the ij completely disregarded relevant hardships did not raise even a colorable constitutional claim or question of law because the petitioner merely attacked  the factual findings made and the balancing of factors engaged in by the ij holding that the ijs beliefs that the indian government would not issue a misspelled passport and the petitioner would have learned the name of her smuggling agent during their journey were speculative and insufficient to support an adverse credibility determination