arrest in March 2000. Lin simply responded with greater detail when she was specifically asked about being “locked up.” Also, contrary to the IJ’s conclusions, the record establishes that the Chinese government did in fact interfere with Lin’s business and that she was able to fly to Guan Toa in one day without violating her duty to report to the police. Similarly, the discrepancy between Lin’s consistent testimony that she started practicing Zhong Gong in October 1994 and the asylum officer’s notation that she began practicing in 1995 was a “discrepancy ... capable of being attributed to a typographical or clerical error, [and] it [therefore] cannot form the bases of an adverse credibility finding.” Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir.2000); see also Bandari, 227 F.3d at 1166 (<HOLDING>). Finally, the IJ cited Lin’s nervous demeanor
holding that speculation and conjecture cannot support an adverse credibility finding holding that inconsistencies  adequately support the administrative law judges alj  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 inconsistencies between an application and testimony can serve as the basis for adverse credibility findings where the testimonial change goes to the heart of a petitioners claim holding an ij must to address a petitioners explanation for inconsistencies to rely upon them as the basis for an adverse credibility finding