With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011). Substantial evidence—Kaur’s inconsistent applications, documents, and testimony—supports the IJ’s decision; a reasonable factfinder would not have been compelled to conclude other'wise. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 780 (9th Cir. 2011). 3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. The IJ could not evaluate Kaur’s credibility based on her oral testimony and could not determine the veracity of Kaur’s documentary claims because of Kaur’s repeated invocation of her Fifth Amendment right. The IJ accorded no evidentiary weight to the written information provided by Kaur. Kaur does not point to any record evidence that compels reversal of the agency’s decision. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. ** This

A: holding substantial evidence supported the denial of cat relief where the petitioners cat claim was based on the same testimony the ij found not credible and the petitioner pointed to no other evidence that the ij should have considered
B: holding that an ij made an explicit credibility when the ij found testimony not credible based on several enumerated inconsistencies
C: holding that the criminalalien bar applied to aliens cat claim that the ij failed to correctly consider  interpret  and weigh the evidence
D: holding that where the ij finds the petitioner to be credible his testimony must be accepted
A.