Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA affirms without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We grant the petition and remand. The IJ failed to address petitioner’s explanation for an inconsistency between his testimony and his wife’s affidavit, for a dispute regarding testimony given to an asylum officer, and for his testimony that no others were arrested when he was arrested. The IJ’s findings in this regard cannot support the adverse credibility determination. See Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the IJ’s finding that Singh
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 it is error for an ij to rely upon the petitioners inability to obtain live testimony from persons living abroad to support an adverse credibility determination holding that an ij made an explicit credibility when the ij found testimony not credible based on several enumerated inconsistencies 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