Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
became very confused about the timing of her alleged abortion. An independent review of the record confirms that the petitioner’s awkward attempts to make sense out of a story that did not hang together cannot be lightly dismissed. A third basis for the IJ’s adverse credibility finding involves the high price that the petitioner paid to be smuggled into the United States. The IJ had difficulty believing that someone who complained so bitterly about a 5,000 yuan penalty could meet the $50,000 price tag set by the smugglers. The IJ also noted that this steep price, once paid, gave the petitioner a tremendous incentive to lie, if necessary, so as to remain in the United States. The petitioner attempts to debunk this reasoning as mere conjecture. See Cordero-Tre-jo, 40 F.3d at 487 . We regard it, however, as the drawing of a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that no deference is due when findings are based on inferences not grounded in the record or merely personal views of the immigration judge
B. holding that when findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses rule 52 demands even greater deference to the trial courts findings for only the trial judge is in a position to be aware of the variations in demeanor including but not limited to the actions mannerisms and facial expressions that bear so heavily on the listeners understanding of and belief in what is said
C. holding that clearly erroneous standard of review governs district courts factual findings based on state record documentary evidence and inferences from other facts
D. holding that because the state court made no findings as to the merits of the petitioners claim it is axiomatic that there are no findings to which we can give deference and thus  2254d does not apply
E. holding that while legislative findings are due deference that cannot foreclose a courts constitutional analysis
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.