With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003). We review the IJ’s adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence and will uphold the findings unless the evidence presented would compel a reasonable finder of fact to reach the contrary result. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). The IJ must articulate a legitimate basis to question the applicant’s credibility and must offer specific and cogent reasons for any stated disbelief. Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition. The IJ’s credibility determination, based on inconsistencies regarding significant elements of Anura’s testimony and the documents submitted, is supported by substantial evidence. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The IJ found that there were serious

A: holding that minor discrepancies that do not involve the heart of the asylum claim are not an adequate basis for an adverse credibility finding
B: holding that ij properly based adverse credibility finding on omission in asylum application where omitted fact went  to the heart of the asylum claim  citation omitted
C: holding that inconsistencies in the aliens statements must go to the heart of the asylum claim to justify an adverse credibility finding
D: recognizing that using false documents that go to the heart of an asylum claim can indicate lack of credibility
C.