With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 3 (9th Cir.2000). “[T]he question remaining to be answered becomes whether these facts, and their reasonable inferences, satisfy the elements of the claim for relief.” Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216(9th Cir.2005). The IJ concluded, and the BIA agreed, that Aguilar’s testimony did not meet his burden of proving that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if removed to El Salvador. The government urges us to accept this conclusion, but we need not reach this issue. Even if the IJ correctly concluded that Aguilar’s testimony, by itself, was insufficient to meet his burden under CAT, this conclusion would not be dispositive because a CAT applicant may satisfy his burden with evidence of country conditions alone. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Here, it is undisputed that the Country

A: holding it improper to deny cat relief based on adverse credibility finding where objective documentary evidence establishes likelihood of torture
B: holding that defeat of asylum claim on credibility grounds does not necessarily preclude relief on a cat claim
C: holding that a negative credibility finding for the purposes of an asylum claim does not preclude relief under cat where documented country conditions corroborate a claim of torture
D: holding that the agency may not deny a cat claim solely on the basis of adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context where the cat claim did not turn upon credibility
C.