skills, but did not practice Falun Gong because he was busy with school. You test ity determination on an inconsistency between You’s testimony and a letter submitted by his father. You’s father stated in his letter that You was detained by school security officials in May 2005, whereas You testified that this event occurred in May 2000. This inconsistency, although minor, further undermines You’s credibility. See Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir.2006). However, the IJ’s decision was not without error. The IJ erred by basing his adverse credibility determination on his finding that You’s testimony about Falun Gong lacked “sufficiency of detail” where You was not asked to provide additional details. See Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 104, 114 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the IJ’s finding that it was
holding that in the absence of an adverse credibility determination the court must accept petitioners testimony as true holding that the record did not support the agencys adverse credibility finding in the absence of additional probing holding that history of dishonesty can support an adverse credibility finding holding that inconsistencies  adequately support the administrative law judges alj  adverse credibility finding holding that speculation and conjecture cannot support an adverse credibility finding