With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". began, and also a letter from the SRP confirming Yann’s status as an active party member living at a Cambodian address. The SRP letter was dated October 25, 2004, two and a half years after Yann moved to the United States. Yann also submitted a letter from a Cambodian friend, who wrote police officers had come to his house looking for Yann. The IJ did not find the documents Yann submitted to be adequate corroboration. Having found Yann’s testimony of past persecution not credible, the IJ reasonably determined Yann failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution. The IJ expressly denied all forms of relief based on the general conclusion that Yann’s testimony was not credible and his story was unbelievable. See, e.g., Fofanah v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1037, 1040 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The BIA affirmed without opinion. II

A: 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
B: holding where withholding of removal and cat claims were based on the same discredited testimony the bia properly concluded the adverse credibility finding was fatal to all claims
C: holding that petitioners failure to exhaust the adverse credibility finding precluded this court from having jurisdiction to consider her claims of asylum withholding of removal and cat
D: holding that when the asylum withholding of removal and cat claims are based on the same factual predicate a credibility ruling necessarily forecloses relief in each
B.