Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that bar does not extend to his requests for withholding of removal or CAT protection. We conclude, however, that because the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, Aung did not meet his burden of establishing his eligibility for these forms of relief. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004) (reviewing an adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence). There was an inconsistency in Aung’s testimony regarding the date he joined the National League for Democracy (“NLD”) and there was an inconsistency as to whether Aung participated in NLD political activities during his foreign business travels. Because Aung claimed persecution based on his political beliefs, these inconsistencies go to the heart of his claim. See id. . PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. ** This
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum
B. 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
C. holding that in the absence of an adverse credibility determination the court must accept petitioners testimony as true
D. holding that the ijs adverse credibility determination must be upheld so long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim of persecution emphasis added
E. holding that the reviewing court must accept the adverse credibility finding so long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the petitioners claim of persecution internal quotation marks omitted first alteration in original
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.