Ho and of the threats that the authorities made against his family because of his alleged religious activities. The IJ’s finding is based on substantial evidence and involves the heart of Ho’s claim. See Secaida-Rosales, 331 F.3d at 308. Further, the IJ found Ho incredible because he failed to mention in both his airport interview and his credible fear interview that he was persecuted in China because of his Christian faith. The IJ could reasonably find that if Ho actually were persecuted in China on account of his religious beliefs, he would have raised that claim during those interviews, notwithstanding Ho’s claim of misguided instruction given to him by the “snakeheads” who transported him to the United States. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 398-400 (2d Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). These findings alone support the IJ’s
holding that an adverse credibility finding can be based on materially different asylum claims in an airport interview and petitioners subsequent testimony before the ij holding that where asylum officer testifies regarding accuracy of interviewing procedures inconsistencies between petitioners asylum interview testimony and merits hearing testimony form sufficient basis to uphold adverse credibility determination holding an ij must to address a petitioners explanation for inconsistencies to rely upon them as the basis for an adverse credibility finding holding that an adverse credibility determination cannot be based on trial testimony that is more detailed than the applicants initial statements at the airport holding that ij properly based adverse credibility finding on omission in asylum application where omitted fact went  to the heart of the asylum claim  citation omitted