With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". application prior to May 11, 2005, the REAL ID Act does not govern this case. Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1240 n. 3 (9th Cir.2010). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Zhang v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir.2005). We deny Shahirian’s petition for asylum and withholding of removal, but remand his CAT claim for further proceedings. 1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility determination. Shahirian’s inability to recall the specific contents of the fliers he was handing out — the very fliers that resulted in his alleged arrest and persecution — goes to the heart of his political asylum claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we need not address the IJ’s

A: holding when one identified ground for an adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of petitioners claim of persecution the court is bound to accept the ijs adverse credibility determination
B: holding that the reviewing court must accept the adverse credibility finding so long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the petitioners claim of persecution internal quotation marks omitted first alteration in original
C: holding that in light of an applicants omission of various relevant facts from his asylum application substantial evidence supported the ijs adverse credibility determination
D: holding that the ijs adverse credibility determination must be upheld so long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim of persecution emphasis added
D.