With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". IJs have the freedom to require supporting evidence, yet do not inappropriately demand it, we require that, before denying a claim for lack of corroboration, an IJ must “(1) make an explicit credibility finding; (2) explain why it is reasonable to have expected additional corroboration; and (3) explain why the petitioner’s reason for not producing that corroboration is inadequate.” Ikama-Obambi v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 720, 725 (7th Cir.2006); accord Gontcharova v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 873, 877 (7th Cir.2004). In this case the IJ did not explicitly make an adverse credibility finding, as the BIA acknowledged. Had the IJ then denied Lopez’s asylum claim due to the lack of corroboration alone, we would have cause to vacate and remand. See Diallo v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 764, 766 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). But the IJ and BIA went on to evaluate the

A: holding that an ij failed to make explicit credibility finding when he remarked that applicants testimony was vague and confusing as well as exaggerated
B: holding that the ij must make clean determinations of credibility
C: holding that ij failed to make explicit credibility finding when he described applicants testimony as general and meager making his demand for corroborating evidence improper
D: holding that an ij made an explicit credibility when the ij found testimony not credible based on several enumerated inconsistencies
C.