Ogannisian

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Matevos Ogannisian petitions for review from the Board of Immigration *627 Appeal’s (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 1 Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 850 F.3d 845 , 851 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence an IJ’s determination of a petitioner’s credibility, Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217 , 1225 (9th Cir.2002), eligibility for asylum, Hoque v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.2004), and eligibility for withholding of removal, Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 884 (9th Cir. 2004).

The IJ found Petitioner not credible. Although we defer to an IJ’s credibility determination, the IJ must be explicit, Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1137-39 (9th Cir.2004), and must articulate the bases for the determination on the record, Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir.2002). Here, the IJ stated that Petitioner’s testimony “was not consistent,” “conflicted with information provided in his written account,” and “oftentimes…