he omitted information that he had been imprisoned and mistreated. The asylum officer who conducted the English-language interview did not testify at the hearing, and the record does not contain a transcript of the interview or the asylum officer’s notes. Substantial evi- dence therefore does not support the BIA’s reliance on this omission to find Ghebremedhin incredible, because the record does not support the agency’s rejection of Ghebremedhin’s explanation for the omission. See Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1087-91 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that without officer testimony or detailed notes from the asylum interview, an Assessment to Refer provides insufficient evidence to support an adverse credibility determination); see also Campos-Sanchez v. INS, 164 F.3d 448, 450 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Because the BIA relied on its credibility
holding the bia must address in a reasoned manner the explanations that a petitioner offers for perceived inconsistencies holding an ij must to address a petitioners explanation for inconsistencies to rely upon them as the basis for an adverse credibility finding holding that the agency need not credit an applicants explanations unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so holding that the agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so holding that an agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistencies in the record unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so