With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". we treat the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir.2001). We accord deference to the IJ’s credibility determination because she was in the best position to observe the witness’s tone and demeanor. See Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1395 (9th Cir.1985). An IJ may rely on “any relevant factor” and base a decision on the “totality of the circumstances.” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2011). The factors utilized in making this determination need not go “to the heart of an applicant’s claim.” Id. at 1084. An IJ, however, must give the alien an opportunity to explain perceived inconsistencies and may not rely on trivial inconsistencies or speculation. See, e.g., Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>) (citing Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679,

A: holding that adverse credibility determinations under the real id act must take into consideration the individual circumstances of the applicant
B: holding that in the absence of an adverse credibility determination the court must accept petitioners testimony as true
C: holding that an adverse credibility determination under the real id act must take into account the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors
D: 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
D.