With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The statutes governing asylum protect not only against persecution by government forces, but also against persecution by non-governmental groups that the government cannot control, including paramilitary or guerilla forces. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir.2006). But even in those cases, the political opinion at issue is the victim’s, not the persecutor’s. Id. at 1257-58. Evidence of past persecution that is consistent with either acts of private violence or the petitioner’s failure to cooperate with guerillas, or that merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity, does not constitute evidence of persecution based oh a statutorily protected ground. Id. at 1258; see also Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 436, 438 (11th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The asylum applicant has the burden of

A: holding that random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground
B: holding that petitioners who apply for withholding of removal must establish that a statutorily protected ground was a reason for their persecution
C: holding that harassment by the farc for refusing to cooperate with their demands for money did not establish a nexus to a statutorily protected ground
D: holding that evidence that  is consistent with acts of private violence  or that merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground
C.