With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". wording between Chen’s father’s letter and Chen’s own statement. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir.2007) (stating that “striking similarities between affidavits are an indication that the statements are ‘canned’ ”); Surinder Singh v. BIA, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir.2006); see also Ying Li v. BCIS, 529 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir.2008) (“[W]hen an adverse credibility finding is based partly or entirely on implausibility, [this Court] review[s] the entire record, not whether each unusual or implausible feature of the account can be explained or rationalized.”). Having called Chen’s credibility into question, the IJ also reasonably relied on his failure to submit corroborating evidence from his boyfriend. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); see also Maladho Djehe Diallo v. Gonzales,

A: holding that a failure to corroborate ones testimony with supporting evidence cannot form the sole basis for an adverse credibility determination
B: recognizing that an applicants failure to corroborate his testimony may bear on credibility because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question
C: recognizing distinction made in maynard that one accomplices outofcourt statement may corroborate the incourt testimony of another accomplice but outofcourt testimony of a testifying accomplice cannot be used to corroborate his own testimony
D: holding that an ij may not use general information contained in a state department report to discredit specific testimony regarding an applicants personal experience
B.