With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". petition for review. We will reverse a determination denying eligibility for asylum “only if the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002) (internal quotations omitted). Credibility findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony on credibility grounds must offer specific, cogent reasons for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir.1989). The immigration judge did so in this case. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling that Umboh did not sustain the burden of proving himself eligible for asylum. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

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 trial courts resolution of disputed facts are conclusive on appeal when supported by substantial evidence
D: holding that a factfinders rulings will be upheld if supported by reasonable substantial and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole citation omitted
B.