With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". we hesitate to affirm the adverse credibility finding solely on the basis of these differences in the affidavits. Finally, the BIA and IJ erred by relying on Kumar’s failure to present evidence to corroborate his attendance at Sikh religious facilities. The IJ did not give Ku-mar a reasonable opportunity to explain the absence of corroborating evidence. For example, when the IJ asked Kumar why he had not produced a witness to confirm that he attended Sikh facilities in San Jose and Fremont, Kumar responded “I haven’t brought it, but I can bring it.” Thereafter, the IJ never asked Kumar to make good on that offer yet then relied on the absence of any such witness to find that Kumar lacked credibility. That was unfair. See Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1246 n. 9 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Because “each of the [BIA]’s ... proffered

A: holding that the trial court erred by giving a misleading instruction
B: holding that after the real id act the ij must still provide specific examples of a petitioners demean or that would support this basis for an adverse credibility determination
C: holding that where the ij finds the petitioner to be credible his testimony must be accepted
D: holding in a prereal id act case that the ij  erred by not giving petitioner an opportunity to explain his failure to provide additional corroborating evidence
D.