records and Suntharalinkam’s testimony, or whether there is a reasonable explanation to reconcile the two had the IJ simply adhered to his obligation to inquire into such an explanation, we will not uphold an adverse credibility finding. Contrary to the government’s argument, putting Suntharalinkam on notice that his credibility generally was left open to question is not sufficient. The IJ is required to give the petitioner the opportunity to explain specific perceived discrepancies. Otherwise, the IJ is free to base an adverse credibility finding on disparities that, if given an opportunity, could be explained credibly by the petitioner, and we are left to speculate as to whether there is some rational explanation for the discrepancy the IJ thinks he sees. See Chen, 362 F.3d at 618 (<HOLDING>). Singh v. Ashcroft, 367. F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th
holding tenyearolds unequivocal testimony about her father touching her was sufficient to convict him for seconddegree criminal sexual conduct despite his claim that the story was fabricated holding that procedural due process requires that a student suspended for disciplinary reasons be given oral or written notice of the charges against her and if she denies them an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present her side of the story holding that plaintiffs evidence showing that defendant refused to allow her to work as flight attendant because of her weight failed to demonstrate that defendant perceived her as substantially limited in any major life activity holding that the ij erred by failing to consider an explanation offered by the petitioner for her brothers failure to appear and testify on her behalf holding that because petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to explain what the ij perceived as an inconsistency in her testimonythe ijs doubt about the veracity of her story  cannot serve as a basis for the denial of asylum