In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

evidence and reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion." Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir.2006). Under this pre-REAL ID Act standard of review, the Immigration Judge ("IJ") or BIA "must identify specific, cogent reasons for an adverse credibility finding" and the reasons must "strike at the heart of the claim." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination in Yao's case. There were significant discrepancies in the evidence regarding the length of Yao's detention, where he was detained at night, and the chain of events that occurred when he arrived at the police station. These discrepancies go to the heart of Yao's claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Yao's declaration states that he was detained
Holding statements: (A) holding that appellants complaint on appeal that the environment was coercive did not change the fact that he was not in custody when he voluntarily went to the police station was told several times he could leave and did leave after the interrogation (B) holding that discrepancies regarding the events leading up to petitioners departure and the number of times he was arrested went to the heart of his claim (C) holding that a driver was an independent contractor where he had unfettered discretion to determine the days and times he worked with no minimum or maximum number of hours or days imposed by the defendant (D) holding that when defendant was guilty of burglary but the only evidence that he was armed was from his own statement existence of the firearm went only to the degree of the offense and was not as an element of proof (E) holding that earlier events set the stage for what followed and that factual disputes regarding those events were material
holding that appellants complaint on appeal that the environment was coercive did not change the fact that he was not in custody when he voluntarily went to the police station was told several times he could leave and did leave after the interrogation