With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Jiang Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on Yu’s admitted post-entry immigration fraud. See Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Further, because the IJ had reason to

A: holding that speculation and conjecture cannot support an adverse credibility finding
B: holding that inconsistencies  adequately support the administrative law judges alj  adverse credibility finding
C: holding that history of dishonesty can support an adverse credibility finding
D: holding that material alterations in the applicants account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding
C.