With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". registration document. Moreover, the latter document was issued after the petitioner had emigrated to the United States, raising an obvious question as to why the Chinese government would certify her place of abode at a time when she was no longer there. The IJ considered these inconsistencies in light of the widespread document fraud among asylum seekers from the petitioner’s home region and the seeming pattern of falsehoods that emerged. See U.S. Dep’t of State, China: Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions (April 14, 1998); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.12 (enabling immigration officials to consider such reports in making asylum determinations). The adverse inferences that she drew from that evidence were supportable. See Qin v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 302, 307 (1st Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). To be sure, the petitioner offered

A: holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract
B: holding that the agency may properly conclude that a prior adverse credibility determination undermines the authenticity of documentary evidence filed in support of a motion to reopen
C: holding the profile considered in light of contradictory documentary evidence sufficient to support a finding of fabrication
D: holding that in reviewing no evidence point court views evidence in light that tends to support finding of disputed fact and disregards all evidence and inferences to contrary
C.