Kaur

dissenting.

I would grant the petition to remand the case to the BIA for several reasons. First, I find that none of the inconsistencies raised by the IJ go to the heart of Kaur’s asylum claim and none of them represent an attempt by Kaur to exaggerate her claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001) (finding that inconsistencies that do not “go to the heart of [an] asylum claim” do not warrant adverse credibility finding); Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th Cir.2000) (rejecting adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies regarding which day beating occurred during period of imprisonment). Second, I believe that it is incorrect to conclude that knowledge of particular facts about the hierarchy and election politics of the AISSF is a prerequisite to asylum based on membership in that group. Speculation about what a petitioner should know can never replace substantial evidence. Maini v. INS, 212 F.3d 1167, 1175 (9th Cir.2000). Finally, I believe the memorandum is too deferential *123 to the IJ’s finding on demeanor. An IJ’s credibility determinations are not immunized from review simply because they concern a witness’s demeanor. Paredes-…

MEMORANDUM ***

Rajwinder Kaur (“Kaur”) petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(l). We deny the petition.

The IJ determined that Kaur did not qualify for asylum or withholding of deportation because the IJ found that her testimony was not credible. 1 The IJ based this *122 determination on observations of Kaur’s demeanor while testifying and on the numerous incongruities and implausibilities in her testimony. We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2000). “Inconsistencies in the petitioner’s statements must go to the heart of [her] asylum claim to justify an adverse credibility finding.” Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). “We give special deference to a credibility determination that is based on demeanor.” Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the IJ gave “specific, cogent reasons] for…