With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000), and we reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Singh provided unbelievable testimony about how he received the documents purportedly from India and that the documents bear mistakes unlikely to be present on official documents. These discrepancies go to the heart of Singh’s proof that he was persecuted as a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal. See Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 955-56 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the record does not compel the

A: holding that omissions in petitioners asylum application which go to the heart of the claim support adverse credibility finding
B: holding that minor discrepancies that do not involve the heart of the asylum claim are not an adequate basis for an adverse credibility finding
C: holding that an asylum applicants submission of false documents without an adequate explanation supported adverse credibility findings
D: recognizing that using false documents that go to the heart of an asylum claim can indicate lack of credibility
D.