that are based on the adjudicator’s observation of the applicant’s demeanor, in recognition of the fact that the IJ’s ability to observe the witness’s demeanor places her in the best position to evaluate whether apparent problems in the witness’s testimony suggest a lack of credibility or, rather, can be attributed to an innocent cause such as difficulty understanding the question. See Zhang, 386 F.3d at 73. On the other hand, we grant lesser deference to credibility determinations that are based on analysis of testimony as opposed to demeanor. See Secaida-Rosales, 331 F.3d at 307. “[W]e will reverse where [an] adverse credibility finding is based upon speculation or upon an incorrect analysis of the testimony.” Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 178; see also Secaida-Rosales, 331 F.3d at 307 (<HOLDING>). Where inconsistencies or implausibilities
holding that personal conjecture about the manner in which indian passport officials carry out their duties could not support an adverse credibility finding holding that speculation and conjecture  cannot serve as a reason for an adverse credibility finding  citing shah 220 f3d at 1071 9th cir2000 holding that speculation and conjecture cannot support an adverse credibility finding holding that history of dishonesty can support an adverse credibility finding holding that burden of clear and convincing proof cannot be satisfied by mere conjecture or speculation