Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on the ground that determination not supported by substantial evidence; holding that IJ could not reject documentary evidence for the same reasons it rejected testimonial evidence; and holding that the documentary evidence established the objective component of petitioner’s claim of well-founded fear of future persecution). Here, Chen has submitted documents which support her contention that she had an abortion, that she and her husband were ordered to be sterilized, and that she and her husband were fired from their factory job for violating China’s one child policy. In the absence of an explicit rejection of petitioner’s documentary evidence by the IJ, this court must accept the petitioner’s documentary evidence as true. See Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir.2000) ; see also Zahedi, 222 F.3d at 1165 (holding
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the court need not accept as true  unwarranted factual inferences
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 an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum
D. holding that an adverse credibility determination must be supported by a true inconsistency
E. holding that in the absence of an adverse credibility determination the court must accept petitioners testimony as true
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.