With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in which we held that the BIA erred because it made “no pronouncement on the credibility of Dial-lo’s underlying testimony or of his explanations for the lack of additional corroborating evidence,” the IJ here made clear that he found Ebid’s testimony not credible because he knowingly relied on a fraudulent document that he did not reveal to be fraudulent until after a government investigation. We thus have no difficulty in reviewing the IJ’s determination with respect to Ebid’s credibility. Nor do we find error in the IJ’s dismissal of Ebid’s explanation that he submitted the fraudulent letter because a friend had told him that it was necessary to have corroboration. In contrast to circumstances in which an applicant uses a false document under duress, see, e.g., Lin, 445 F.3d at 132, (<HOLDING>), this explanation does not undermine the IJ’s

A: holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum
B: holding that omissions in petitioners asylum application which go to the heart of the claim support adverse credibility finding
C: holding that substantial evidence supported an adverse credibility finding where the petitioners two asylum applications differed significantly regarding past persecution
D: holding that the use of a fraudulent document to escape persecution does not undermine a petitioners credibility in asylum proceedings
D.