not producing that corroboration is inadequate. Gontcharova v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 873, 877 (7th Cir.2004); see Dong, 421 F.3d at 579 (applying Gontcharova requirements to withholding of removal applications). The second and third of these elements were met in this case. The IJ’s explanation of how Ikama-Obambi reasonably could have obtained corroboration is plausible and deserves deference. The IJ identified evidence that would have been readily obtainable regardless of the political upheaval in Congo, such as a statement from Offounga, who now safely resides in France. After all, Ikama-Obambi’s asylum hearing was conducted three years after she filed her application. And as for documenting her father’s role in the RDD, the BIA explained that “[tjypically, eviden 8-79 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Soumahoro v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 732, 736 (7th
holding that an ij made an explicit credibility when the ij found testimony not credible based on several enumerated inconsistencies holding that an ij failed to make explicit credibility finding when he made passing remark that he disbelieved applicants testimony holding that an ij failed to make explicit credibility finding when he remarked that applicants testimony was vague and confusing as well as exaggerated holding that an ij failed to make explicit credibility flnd ing when he described applicants testimony as general and meager making his demand for corroborating evidence improper holding that ij failed to make explicit credibility finding when he described applicants testimony as general and meager making his demand for corroborating evidence improper