Maung

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Bo Gyi Maung, a native and citizen of Burma (Myanmar), petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Where, as here, the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ without an opinion of its own, we review the decision of the IJ. Zahedi v. INS, 222 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir.2000). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir.2006).

Substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility determina *901 tion even though the IJ gave several reasons for the finding.

1. Many of the alleged inconsistencies are not factually supported by the record. See Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 957 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that inconsistencies not factually supported by the record are not an appropriate basis for an adverse credibility finding).

2. The IJ improperly dismissed Petitioner’s explanations of his travel to, and within, the United States based on speculation and…

The central issue in this appeal is whether the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination is supported by specific, cogent reasons that are “substan *902 tial and bear a legitimate nexus” to the finding. Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1258 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002) (additional citations omitted)). The immigration judge here cited sufficient instances of inconsistency in the evidence to meet the deferential standard of review on appeal, particularly the discrepancies he observed between the stories told by the alien and his witness, Mr. Oo, and regarding the alien’s conduct underlying his claimed arrest at the rally, where we can’t say what materials he was distributing that led to his incarceration.

My dissent in Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 890-92 (9th Cir.2004), outlines what I believe to be our proper role when reviewing an immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination. Congress appears to hold the same belief as well. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(l)(B)(iii) (2006) (credibility determination in asylum cases); id. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would…