to clarify his or her testimony.”). The IJ also found Win not credible based on Win’s allegedly inconsistent testimony that the police were watching her, yet she was able to obtain a passport and authorization to travel. This finding fails because the IJ failed to address Win’s reasonable explanation for the perceived inconsistency — that her family paid a bribe. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2009) (“[IJ’s] lack of consideration given to [petitioner’s] proffered explanation was error and prevented] the underlying inconsistency from serving as substantial evidence.”). Furthermore, the IJ’s decision is based on impermissible speculation on how the government in Burma operates. See Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 887-88 (9th Cir. 2004) (superseded by statute) (<HOLDING>). In addition to the two main credibility
holding that history of dishonesty can support an adverse credibility finding 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 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 any alleged inconsistencies in dates that reveal nothing about a petitioners credibility cannot form the basis of an adverse credibility finding holding that speculation and conjecture cannot support an adverse credibility finding