Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
review de novo questions of law, Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir.2008). We dismiss in part, deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand. We lack jurisdiction to consider Liang’s contention that his former attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because Liang’s inconsistency regarding whether or not he lived in Venezuela for three years before coming to the United States was not a minor discrepancy, see Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043, and he failed to provide corroborating evidence of his identity, see Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1090-92 (9th Cir.2000) . We conclude that in his brief to the BIA,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when the ij has reason to question an aliens credibility material and easily available corroboration may be required
B. recognizing that an applicants failure to corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question
C. recognizing that an applicants failure to corroborate his testimony may bear on credibility because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question
D. holding that an ij made an explicit credibility when the ij found testimony not credible based on several enumerated inconsistencies
E. holding that the ij must make clean determinations of credibility
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.