With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 1 . As we stated in Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 166-67 (2d Cir.2008), our decision in Secaida-Rosales has been abrogated by the REAL ID Act. However, because Shi's asylum application was filed in April 2005, the REAL ID Act does not apply. Thus, the agency properly considered the materiality of the inconsistency at issue in determining whether it undermined Shi’s credibility. 2 . Despite Shi’s arguments to the contrary, the IJ was not required to show that this evidence was reasonably available to him before relying on a lack of corroboration to support her adverse credibility finding. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir.2006)

A: holding substantial evidence supported the denial of cat relief where the petitioners cat claim was based on the same testimony the ij found not credible and the petitioner pointed to no other evidence that the ij should have considered
B: holding that an ij need not first identify the particular pieces of missing relevant evidence and show that this evidence was reasonably available to the applicant when he or she is not otherwise credible
C: holding that the challenged evidence the government introduced in rebuttal was substantive evidence and not  relevant for impeachment purposes because it was not offered to show that the witness was not a credible person but to show that she was not at the defendants home during the relevant time making her testimony that she did not see any drugrelated activity while at the defendants home irrelevant
D: holding that the ij may not rely on a factually unsupported assertion in a state department report to deem an applicant not credible
B.