With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Although the BIA noted that the ability of Padilla’s mother to remain in Honduras unharmed undermined Padilla’s CAT claim, that finding does not equate to “changed circumstances” sufficient for rebuttal. Compare Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir.1999) (well-founded fear diminished where family members continued to live in her native country), with Islami v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 391, 397 (2d Cir.2005) (requiring government to show that “country conditions have changed radically” to establish a fundamental change in circumstances sufficient to rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution (emphasis added)), overruled in part on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. D.O.J., 494 F.3d 296, 305 (2d Cir.2007), and Kone v. Holder, 596 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Because this presumption applies equally to

A: holding that the government bears the initial burden of producing evidence that a third country offered the applicant some type of permanent resettlement or evidence a third country officially sanctioned the aliens indefinite presence
B: holding based on equitable estoppel principles that a municipality may not through its agents affirmatively create an objectively reasonable impression in an applicant that he has fully complied with all zoning requirements and then proceed to withdraw permission after the applicant has taken steps towards construction which result in a substantial detriment to the applicant
C: holding that an asylum applicant must make a showing of a particularized threat of persecution
D: holding that aliens return trip did not rebut the presumption because the government cannot satisfy its burden  simply by showing that applicant enjoyed periods with no new persecution or that applicant will not perpetually be persecuted in her native country
D.