Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
investigation. Citing In re O-D-21 I. & N. Dec. 1079, 1083, 1998 WL 24904 (BIA 1998), the IJ determined that the forgery indicated a lack of credibility with respect to Ebid’s testimony in general and, in particular, with respect to the May 1999 incident. Ebid claims that the IJ erred in making an adverse credibility determination on the basis of the submission of one fraudulent document that Ebid explained was the result of a friend’s advice that he needed corroboration and the fact that he could not obtain one from his doctor in Egypt. We disagree. An asylum applicant’s knowing use of a fraudulent document that goes to the heart of his or her asylum claim, without sufficient explanation, can be substantial evidence to support an IJ’s decision. See In re O-D-, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 1083 ; accord, Borovikova v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
```
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. recognizing that using false documents that go to the heart of an asylum claim can indicate lack of credibility
C. holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable
D. holding that an asylum applicants submission of false documents without an adequate explanation supported adverse credibility findings
E. holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.