Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
relief from removal. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. “Conversely, an adverse credibility determination alone may be sufficient to support the denial of an asylum application.” Id. “[A]n adverse credibility determination, [however], does not alleviate the IJ’s duty to consider other evidence produced by an asylum applicant,” and it is not sufficient for the IJ to rely on the adverse credibility finding alone, if the applicant produces other evidence of persecution. Id. “The weaker an applicant’s testimony, ... the greater the need for corroborative evidence.” Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir.2005). This Court has held that an applicant’s failure to mention certain aspects of his claim before the hearing can support an adverse credibility finding. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287 . Upon review of the record and the briefs of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in light of an applicants omission of various relevant facts from his asylum application substantial evidence supported the ijs adverse credibility determination
B. holding that an asylum applicants submission of false documents without an adequate explanation supported adverse credibility findings
C. holding that the failure to list two collateral incidents on an asylum application did not provide substantial evidence for an adverse credibility finding
D. 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
E. holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.