
    Weigian XU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72271.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 9, 2005.
    
    Decided May 16, 2005.
    Weigian Xu, Alhambra, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michelle E. Gorden, Victor M. Lawrence, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
      
         This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Weigian Xu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (the “Convention”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition.

Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s credibility determination, we review the IJ’s opinion as if it were the opinion of the BIA. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1999). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. The IJ’s determination is based largely on speculation and conjecture and is not supported by the record. See Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1167-68 (9th Cir.2000). The inconsistencies relied upon by the IJ are minor and do not go to the heart of Xu’s claim. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir.2002). Moreover, the IJ failed to explain why these discrepancies were significant for Xu’s asylum claim. See Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062,1068 (9th Cir.2000).

While we generally “give special deference to a credibility determination that is based on demeanor,” Singh-Kaur, 183 F.3d at 1151, because the IJ did not articulate “specific, cogent reason[s]” for concluding that Xu’s demeanor was not credible, this finding cannot support the adverse credibility determination. See Abovian v. INS, 219 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir.2000).

Accordingly, we remand this matter to the BIA for further proceedings to determine whether, accepting Xu’s testimony as credible, he is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     