With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". given the recent history of political upheaval in Congo. Review of this question is limited by § 101(e) of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (amending 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4), which provides that “no court shall reverse a determination made by a trier of fact with respect to the availability of corroborating evidence ... unless the court finds ... that a reasonable trier of fact is compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.”) Id. § 101(e). This provision applies in Ikama-Obambi’s case. See id. § 101(h); Orejuela v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 666, 671 (7th C ama-Obambi was not credible because she lacked certain substantiating evidence, an implicit finding is not enough to justify an IJ’s demand for corroboration. See Soumahoro, 415 F.3d at 736 (<HOLDING>). Here, the IJ did question Ikama-Obambi’s

A: holding an ijs credibility findings are entitled to deference if supported by specific cogent reasons
B: holding that an ijs credibility determinations enjoy highly deferential review when supported by specific cogent reasons that bear a legitimate nexus to the findings
C: holding that explicit credibility finding must be more than passing remark of disbelief and must be supported by specific cogent reasons
D: holding that substantial evidence supports an adverse credibility finding if it is supported by specific cogent reasons
C.