With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a letter dated January 7, 2007, from Lian YanPing, see AR at 365, and another dated December 26, 2006, from Mr. Lin’s wife, see AR at 359-60, contained any reference to physical harm suffered by Mr. Lin himself. See AR at 202-97. See also Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287 (applicant has the burden of rebutting the adverse credibility determination). Moreover, the Board specifically noted that Mr. Lin failed to identify “evidence of record that corroborates” his allegations of physical harm. AR at 4. Mr. Lin produced no evidence other than his own testimony and his November 2010 affidavit suggesting his own past persecution. Accordingly, the Board’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence and was sufficient to deny Mr. Lin’s claim. See Mohammed, 547 F.3d at 1352 (<HOLDING>). IV Because we affirm the Board’s adverse

A: holding when one identified ground for an adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of petitioners claim of persecution the court is bound to accept the ijs adverse credibility determination
B: holding that an adverse credibility determination must be supported by a true inconsistency
C: holding that an adverse credibility determination may be dispositive where the applicant does not produce any corroborating evidence
D: holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum
C.