that corroborating evidence is or is not available only if “a reasonable trier of fact is compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). While the agency must identify what reasonably available evidence should have been provided and must assess the applicant’s explanations for any missing evidence, it is the applicant’s burden, to provide the evidence or an adequate explanation for any failure to obtain it. See Liu, 575 F.3d at 198-99. To overcome the need to corroborate, the applicant’s explanations must compel a conclusion that the requested evidence is not reasonably available. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Yan Juan Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246, 253 (2d Cir. 2011); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). . The record here is, at best, mixed
holding that a claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss holding that prior convictions are merely sentencing enhancements rather than elements of the offense holding that treating trust rather than trustee as attorneys client is inconsistent with the law of trusts holding that statements given voluntarily and without compelling influences are admissible holding in credibility context that explanations for inconsistent statements must be compelling rather than merely plausible