mixed ethnic background. The IJ denied relief after finding Kedei not to be credible. We deny the petition for review because the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. See Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1253 (9th Cir.2003). Kedei checked “No” on his asylum application when asked if he had been mistreated by a group the Fijian government was unable or unwilling to control, and, as bases for his asylum claim, he cited only th , he checked that he is fluent in English and later testified in English, and the differences between his application and oral testimony go to the heart of his claim. Accordingly, we hold that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. See Valderrama v. INS, 260 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); see also Ceballos-Castillo v. INS, 904 F.2d
holding that substantial evidence supported an adverse credibility finding where inter alia the petitioners claimed guerrilla persecution on their asylum applications but later claimed government persecution holding that omissions in petitioners asylum application which go to the heart of the claim support adverse credibility finding holding that the failure to list two collateral incidents on an asylum application did not provide substantial evidence for an adverse credibility finding 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 holding that substantial evidence supported an adverse credibility finding where the petitioners two asylum applications differed significantly regarding past persecution