With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ceraj and his wife timely appealed the BIA’s order. This court denied their motion to stay their removal pending resolution of the present appeal. II. ANALYSIS A. Asylum claim Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision with additional commentary, we review the decision of the IJ, as supplemented by the BIA, as the final administrative order. Gilaj v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 275, 283 (6th Cir.2005). Questions of law involving immigration proceedings are reviewed de novo. Ali v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 407, 409 (6th Cir.2004). But we will affirm the IJ’s factual findings, as well as the determination that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, if substantial evidence supports such determinations. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Under this standard, we

A: holding that a finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole if it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the boards conclusion
B: holding a determination regarding eligibility for asylum is conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole
C: holding that a factfinders rulings will be upheld if supported by reasonable substantial and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole
D: holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record
C.