With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". testimony. From the IJ’s single-sentence analysis, coupled with our review of the record, we cannot discern which of Tesfai-Hailu’s responses the IJ found inadequate or which questions she allegedly refused to answer. Fourth, the IJ found it implausible that the Kebele Youth Association would have elected Tesfai-Hailu to serve as Chairwoman of the Association when she was only fourteen years old. The IJ stated that “[t]he Court has serious doubts that the Kebele youth organization would have elected a 14-year-old to head the organization ... when fighting was extremely intense in Ethiopia.” Tesfai-Hailu’s testimony on this matter clearly surprised the IJ, but conjecture and speculation cannot replace substantial evidence. See Lopez-Reyes v. INS, 79 F.3d 908, 912 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Fifth, the IJ found that Tesfai-Hailu’s

A: holding when one identified ground for an adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of petitioners claim of persecution the court is bound to accept the ijs adverse credibility determination
B: holding that in light of an applicants omission of various relevant facts from his asylum application substantial evidence supported the ijs adverse credibility determination
C: holding that an ijs astonishment regarding aspects of the petitioners testimony was conjecture that could not substitute for substantial evidence
D: holding that jurisdiction was lacking to review an ijs determination that an asylum application was untimely when that determination was based on the fact that the petitioner offered no evidence other than his own testimony regarding his date of entry
C.