and beyond what he already did supply, and his confusion in response to several questions on cross-examination, as reasons for rejecting his testimony. An applicant’s failure to list in his or her initial application facts that emerge later in testimony will not automatically provide a sufficient basis for an adverse credibility finding. “Inconsistencies of less than substantial importance for which a plausible explanation is offered cannot form the sole basis for an adverse credibility finding.” Campos-Sanchez v. INS, 164 F.3d 448, 450 (9th Cir.1999) (internal quotation and alteration omitted). This is especially so when the inconsistencies do not concern the basis for the claim of asylum or withholding, but rather matters collateral or ancillary to the claim. Gao, 299 P.3d at 272 (<HOLDING>); Diallo, 232 F.3d at 288 (holding that minor
holding that minor discrepancies that do not involve the heart of the asylum claim are not an adequate basis for an adverse credibility finding holding that omissions in petitioners asylum application which go to the heart of the claim support adverse credibility finding holding that ij properly based adverse credibility finding on omission in asylum application where omitted fact went  to the heart of the asylum claim  citation omitted holding that inconsistencies in the aliens statements must go to the heart of the asylum claim to justify an adverse credibility finding holding that minor discrepancies in the date of an aliens graduation from high school as compared to the date of a beating did not justify an adverse credibility finding