adverse credibility determination premised on inconsistencies between Rashid’s testimony and his asylum application. The BIA’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence because the major discrepancy between Rashid’s testimony and his asylum application concerning the alleged acts of persecution went to the heart of Rashid’s asylum claim. Most significantly, Rashid’s application asserts that he was subjected to persecution due to his purported efforts to convert poor Muslims to the Christian and Hindu religions. However, at his asylum hearing Rashid testified that as a member of the Awami League, he assisted poor Christian and Hindu children with their subsistence needs, which led to his persecution. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); see also Singh v.
holding that a single inconsistency concerning the nature of the applicants mistreatment  afforded substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility finding holding that material alterations in the applicants account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding holding that a material inconsistency in an aspect of the applicants story that served as an example of the very persecution from which he sought asylum affords substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility finding internal quotations omitted holding that speculation and conjecture cannot support an adverse credibility finding holding that history of dishonesty can support an adverse credibility finding