is correct, however, that his two versions of the story are technically reconcilable, he has still failed to explain why he would omit such a fundamental fact from his initial application. Given that the alleged negative response of government officials to the demonstration was the only true instance of government mistreatment described in the asylum application, it is exceedingly difficult to understand why petitioner’s application would mention only two of the six arrests that allegedly took place. Because this omission went “to the heart” of petitioner’s claim for asylum, Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 308-09 (2d Cir.2003), the IJ did not err in concluding that it undermined petitioner’s credibility. See Dong v. Ashcroft, 406 F.3d 110, 111-12 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). We similarly find no error in the IJ’s
holding that omissions in petitioners asylum application which go to the heart of the claim support adverse credibility finding holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum holding that minor discrepancies that do not involve the heart of the asylum claim are not an adequate basis for an adverse credibility finding 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 holding that inconsistencies in the aliens statements must go to the heart of the asylum claim to justify an adverse credibility finding