With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". BIA’s decision as the final agency determination. See INA § 242(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Where the BIA affirms an IJ’s decision without issuing its own opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 779 (8th Cir.2004). Yann challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. A credibility determination is a finding of fact, and § 1252(b)(4)(B) provides it should be accepted “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Singh v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir.2007). Applying this standard, we conclude the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by specific, cogent reasons to doubt Yann’s credibility. See Gemechu v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 944, 947-48 (8th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Yann’s inconsistent testimony and suspect

A: holding that explicit credibility finding must be more than passing remark of disbelief and must be supported by specific cogent reasons
B: holding an ijs credibility findings are entitled to deference if supported by specific cogent reasons
C: holding that substantial evidence supports an adverse credibility finding if it is supported by specific cogent reasons
D: holding that an ijs credibility determinations enjoy highly deferential review when supported by specific cogent reasons that bear a legitimate nexus to the findings
B.