With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. For example, Singh’s testimony was inconsistent with his parents’ letter regarding the length of his 1999 detention and whether police harassed them at home on hundreds of occasions. In addition, Singh made inconsistent assertions regarding whether or not his mother had been arrested. The agency reasonably declined to credit Singh’s explanations for these discrepancies based on the amount of time he had to correct his application and evidence. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir.2()05). As Singh’s credibility was called into question due to the inconsistences, the agency reasonably relied further on his failure to provide sufficient corroborating evidence. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The IJ specifically noted the inadequacy of

A: holding that an applicants claim of asylum is weakened even undercut when the applicant has returned to the country without incident
B: holding that when the ij has reason to question an aliens credibility material and easily available corroboration may be required
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: recognizing that an asylum applicants failure to corroborate his testimony may bear on his credibility because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question
D.