With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that MoralesBarela failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. The agency correctly determined that Mara Salvatrucha is not a recognized social group and that Morales-Barela’s membership in a gang is not a protected ground. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 943-45 (9th Cir.2007). Furthermore, Morales-Barela did not show he was targeted by police for his disagreement ■with anti-gang laws rather than for his gang activity. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir.2008). Lastly, Morales-Barela’s argument that his unwillingness to follow gang orders constitutes political opinion is foreclosed by our decision in Santos-Lemus. See id. at 746-47 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, his claims for asylum and

A: holding that opposition to a gangs criminal activity is not a protected political opinion
B: holding that retaliation for opposition to government corruption can constitute persecution on account of a political opinion
C: holding that imputed political opinion is a protected ground
D: holding that opposition to government corruption may constitute political opinion
A.