With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Singh failed to submit reasonably available corroborative evidence. This timely appeal followed. II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of review “Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision with additional commentary, we review the decision of the IJ, as supplemented by the BIA, as the final administrative order.” Ceraj v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 583, 588 (6th Cir.2007). Questions of law involving immigration proceedings are reviewed de novo. Ali v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 407, 409 (6th Cir.2004). The IJ’s factual findings, on the other hand, including a determination that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, will not be disturbed if substantial evidence supports such determinations. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Under this standard, we will not reverse a

A: holding a determination regarding eligibility for asylum is conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole
B: holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record
C: holding that a factfinders rulings will be upheld if supported by reasonable substantial and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole citation omitted
D: holding that the trial courts factual findings related to alimony will be upheld on appeal if supported by   any evidence
C.