With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. INS, 192 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA correctly dismissed Contreras-Pabon’s appeal because his vague testimony regarding threats he received failed to demonstrate he was at risk of harm. See Sebastian-Sebastian v. INS, 195 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir.1999). Accordingly, Contreras-Pabon failed to establish eligibility for asylum and therefore failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391, 394 (9th Cir.1997). Contreras-Pabon’s contention that his due process rights were violated lacks merit because Contreras-Pabon was represented by counsel and was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present testimony and evidence. See Cuadras v. INS, 910 F.2d 567, 573 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. *** This

A: holding that petitioner did not exhaust his due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing by arguing that due process was violated on the ground that the ij admitted uncertified evidence
B: holding that to establish a violation of due process an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims internal quotation marks omitted
C: holding that an alien is entitled to the fifth amendment guarantee of due process which is satisfied by a full and fair hearing
D: holding that there is no due process violation where the ijs finding was not arbitrary and the alien was not denied a full and fair opportunity to present his claims
C.